Skip to content


Jai NaraIn Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All106; 46Ind.Cas.407
AppellantJai NaraIn Lal and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 435 - prosecution evidence same against several accused--acquittal of some accused--district magistrate, order of, directing trial of other accused, propriety of--revision--high court, power of interference of. - - the magistrate, however, considered the evidence for the prosecution, considered all the circumstances of the case, inspected the locality and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had hopelessly failed to establish the charge made by the complainant against the accused. that this court can interfere in a matter like this under section 435 of the code of criminal procedure appears from the judgment of this court in chadha t......against this order the present application has been filed. having regard to the judgment of the trial magistrate in the case against the other accused and to the observations of the learned district magistrate to which i have referred, it is clear that no useful purpose will be served by the continuance of proceedings against the applicants. under these circumstances i do not think the prosecution of the applicants should be proceeded with. that this court can interfere in a matter like this under section 435 of the code of criminal procedure appears from the judgment of this court in chadha t.n. v. emperor 36 ind. cas. 878 : 14 a.l.j. 85 : 18 cr. l.j. 46 and the case referred to therein. i accordingly allow the application and set aside the order of the district magistrate, dated the.....
Judgment:

P.C. Banerji, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Magistrate directing the prosecution of the three applicants. It appears that a complaint was made against the three applicants and five other persons charging them with offences under Sections 147, 325 and 452, Indian Penal Code. The case was tried by a Magistrate of the first class against five of the accused. The three applicants, Jai Narain, Kunj Behari and Sanwalia, had not been arrested when the proceedings were commenced. At a late stage of the proceedings they surrendered but the Magistrate did not place them on their trial. The Magistrate, however, considered the evidence for the prosecution, considered all the circumstances of the case, inspected the locality and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had hopelessly failed to establish the charge made by the complainant against the accused. The case of Jai Narain and Kunj Behari was exactly the same as that against some of the other accused, The same charge was brought against Sanwalia also, but he was not named in the first report. After acquitting the other accused the Magistrate who had tried the case made a report to the District Magistrate in which he said that it was useless to proceed against the applicants after what he had said in his judgment, but he asked for orders as to whether the prosecution should be continued against these persons. The Magistrate of the district in his order says that the evidence against the applicants could only be the same as that produced against the other accused and that as that evidence was not credible, the prosecution of the applicants on the same evidence would in all probability be futile. He also remarked that it was doubtful whether any conviction would be likely to succeed. Still he ordered the continuance of the proceedings against these accused and he directed the case to be transferred to another Magistrate for trial. Against this order the present application has been filed. Having regard to the judgment of the trial Magistrate in the case against the other accused and to the observations of the learned District Magistrate to which I have referred, it is clear that no useful purpose will be served by the continuance of proceedings against the applicants. Under these circumstances I do not think the prosecution of the applicants should be proceeded with. That this Court can interfere in a matter like this under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appears from the judgment of this Court in Chadha T.N. v. Emperor 36 Ind. Cas. 878 : 14 A.L.J. 85 : 18 Cr. L.J. 46 and the case referred to therein. I accordingly allow the application and set aside the order of the District Magistrate, dated the 2nd of February 1918, directing the prosecution of the applicants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //