Skip to content


Ashbey Clarke Harris Vs. Mrs. Peal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All351; 58Ind.Cas.351
AppellantAshbey Clarke Harris
RespondentMrs. Peal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 250, 435, 454 - revision application, whether subsequent stage of same case--complainant a european british subject--right to make claim under section 454--jurisdiction. - - it clearly was against mr......was a person of the name of harris, whose complaint was dismissed. he claimed to be a european british subject, a fast which is disputed, but for the purpose of the preliminary objection it must be assumed. he applies in revision to this court to question the order made against him under section 250 by the city magistrate of lucknow, nobody can doubt that a superior criminal court has jurisdiction, under section 435 and the other appropriate sections of the criminal procedure code, to examine an order under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure in the exercise of its ordinary revisional jurisdiction. the question is whether assuming that a person against whom such, an order has been made is a european british subject, this high court has jurisdiction in the case of an order.....
Judgment:

Walsh, J.

1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the City Magistrate of Lucknow on the 22nd of May 1919 awarding compensation to a defendant against a complainant under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant was a person of the name of Harris, whose complaint was dismissed. He claimed to be a European British subject, a fast which is disputed, but for the purpose of the preliminary objection it must be assumed. He applies in revision to this Court to question the order made against him under Section 250 by the City Magistrate of Lucknow, Nobody can doubt that a superior Criminal Court has jurisdiction, under Section 435 and the other appropriate sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, to examine an order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the exercise of its ordinary revisional jurisdiction. The question is whether assuming that a person against whom such, an order has been made is a European British subject, this High Court has jurisdiction in the case of an order made by the City Magistrate of Lucknow. I think it has. The High Court in such case is, as defined by Section 4 (1), to mean the High Court of Judicature of the North-Western Provides in reference to proceedings against European British subjects. I think this was certainly a proceeding. I do not know what else it could possibly be called. It clearly was against Mr. Harris and it ordered him to pay a sum as compensation, and it is assumed for the purpose of this objection that he is a European British subject.

2. A further argument was submitted, namely, that Mr. Harris, assuming that he is a European British subject, has relinquished his right under Section 454. I do not agree with this view. Section 454 provides that if a European British subject does not claim to be dealt with as such by the Magistrate (that obviously refers to a shares made against him in respect of which he may be tried by the Magistrate or committed), he shall be held to have relinquished his right to be dealt with on any special terms applicable to a European British subject and shall not assert it at any subsequent stage of the same case. In the first place, I do not think an application in revision is a subsequent stage of the same. case. It is a totally independent matter giving a right to apply to a superior court independently of any quest upon the hearing of the original case, Secondly, I do not think Mr. Harris, assuming that he was European British subject, would have had any right to make the claim at all under Section 454. It has become a complaint in the Court of the City Magistrate of Lucknow and all the provisions of the Code applicable to complainants were applicable to him. Section 250 was applicable to him, whether he was European British subject of not and therefore there was nothing the jurisdiction of this Court or of Outh, as the case may be, in these matters must depend on a question of fact and not upon the particular claim in particular case or not. The question of fact is whether this proceeding was one against a European British subject. It does not chose to make the claim or not. In my opinion this is the proper court. The preliminary objection foils subject to the determination of the question whether he is a European British subject, with which I will deal at a later stage.

3. I find as a fact that Mr. Harris is a European British subject.


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