Skip to content


Abdul Ghani Khan Vs. Ram Mohan Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935All573
AppellantAbdul Ghani Khan
RespondentRam Mohan Lal
Excerpt:
- - the position however is that the judge of the small cause court, who has heard the evidence and knows the facts has thought it necessary to order a prosecution and has given reasons which, (as i have said above) if they can be supported by the evidence are good reasons for ordering prosecution. the appellate order which has been passed reversing this order does not give good reasons for reversing it......order passed by mr. k. banerji on 1st september 1934 purporting to act as an additional sessions judge of allahabad. that order was passed in the course of the hearing of an appeal from an order passed by the judge of the small cause court allahabad on 20th december 1932 directing the prosecution of the opposite party ram mohan lai for offences under sections 193 and 209, penal code.2. the circumstances are fully stated in the order of the judge of the small cause court, and if the opinions which be expresses in that judgment are supported by the evidence, it is clear that it was not only proper but necessary to grant the application made by abdul ghani khan the present applicant, for the prosecution of the opposite party.3. an appeal was made under section 476-b, criminal p.c., to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kendall, J.

1. This application is made for the revision of an order passed by Mr. K. Banerji on 1st September 1934 purporting to act as an Additional Sessions Judge of Allahabad. That order was passed in the course of the hearing of an appeal from an order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court Allahabad on 20th December 1932 directing the prosecution of the opposite party Ram Mohan Lai for offences under Sections 193 and 209, Penal Code.

2. The circumstances are fully stated in the order of the Judge of the Small Cause Court, and if the opinions which be expresses in that judgment are supported by the evidence, it is clear that it was not only proper but necessary to grant the application made by Abdul Ghani Khan the present applicant, for the prosecution of the opposite party.

3. An appeal was made under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., to the District Judge of Allahabad against the order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court. By some inadvertence the hearing of this appeal was transferred to Mr. Banerji, who as it now appears had no jurisdiction to dispose it of. An appeal under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., lies to the Court to which the Court making the complaint is subordinate, and under Section 195(3), Criminal P.C.:

In the case of a civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such civil Court is situate.

4. The Court ordering the complaint being the Judge of the Small Cause Court of Allahabad it is clear that the District Judge himself had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, but that the Subordinate Judge had no such jurisdiction, and Mr. Banerji though he signed himself Additional Sessions Judge in disposing of the appeal was really purporting to act in the exercise of this civil jurisdiction, which was that not of a District Judge but of a Subordinate Judge.

5. It follows therefore that his appellate order quashing the orders of the Judge of the Small Cause Court was passed without jurisdiction. I have been asked by Mr. Panday not to interfere because it is no part of the duty of the Court to pass orders that will have the effect of injuring any of the parties to a litigation. The position however is that the Judge of the Small Cause Court, who has heard the evidence and knows the facts has thought it necessary to order a prosecution and has given reasons which, (as I have said above) if they can be supported by the evidence are good reasons for ordering prosecution. The appellate order which has been passed reversing this order does not give good reasons for reversing it. I have read it, butt Mr. Banerji does not appear to have faced the real issues in the case, and his order ought not to be allowed to stand even if it could be said to have been passed with jurisdiction.

6. The result is that I allow the present application, without making any order as to costs, and direct that the order passed by Mr. Banerji of 1st August 1934 be set aside. The appeal must be readmitted on its original number, but as it has been pointed out that the present District Judge of Allahabad Mr. Tej Narain Mulla, has made a remark in an official document which may be regarded by the present opposite party as showing that the Judge is likely to disbelieve his statement. I direct that the appeal be transferred for decision to the District Judge of Benares.


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