Skip to content


Ram DIn Singh Vs. Naujadak Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All484; 71Ind.Cas.668
AppellantRam DIn Singh
RespondentNaujadak Singh and ors.
Cases ReferredKhan v. Muhammad Zia
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 125 - application under section whether appeal--bond to keep the peace--district magistrate's power to cancel. - - the magistrate has authority, if he so wishes, to cancel the bonds under the provisions or section 126 (this is clearly a mis print for 125) of the code of criminal procedure. in this he is clearly wrong.daniels, j.1. this is an application for revision of an order of the district magistrate setting aside an order directing the seventeen accused persons to file bonds to keep the peace under section 107 of the criminal procedure code. the district magistrate purported to act under section 125. he had previously sent up the case in revision to this court on the ground that the order of the deputy magistrate was wrong and should be set aside. a learned judge of this court passed the following order:i see no reason to interfere in this matter. the magistrate has authority, if he so wishes, to cancel the bonds under the provisions or section 126 (this is clearly a mis print for 125) of the code of criminal procedure.2. the learned district magistrate has interpreted this order as authority for.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is an application for revision of an order of the District Magistrate setting aside an order directing the seventeen accused persons to file bonds to keep the peace under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The District Magistrate purported to act under Section 125. He had previously sent up the case in revision to this Court on the ground that the order of the Deputy Magistrate was wrong and should be set aside. A learned Judge of this Court passed the following order:

I see no reason to interfere in this matter. The Magistrate has authority, if he so wishes, to cancel the bonds under the provisions or Section 126 (this is clearly a mis print for 125) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The learned District Magistrate has interpreted this order as authority for dealing with the application under Section 125 as an appeal. In this he is clearly wrong. There is a series of rulings of this Court which lay down definitely that an application under Section 125 is not an appeal and does not give power to the District Magistrate to review an order passed by a Deputy Magistrate on the ground that it was improperly passed. I may refer to the following cases in which this rule is laid down:

Banarsi Das v. Partab Singh 18 Ind. Cas. 351 : 35 A. 103 : 11 A.L.J. 16 : 14 Cr.L.J. 63, Sita Ram v. Emperor 39 Ind. Cas. 908 : 39 A. 466 : 15 A.L.J. 469 : 18 Cr.L.J. 630, Shanker Lal v. Emperor 51 Ind. Cas. 473 : 41 A. 651 : 17 A.L.J. 830 : 1 U.P.L.R. (A) 125 : 20 Cr.L.J. 489, Nizam-ud-din Khan v. Muhammad Zia-ul-Nabi Khan 67 Ind. Cas. 350 : 44 A. 614 : 20 A.L.J. 521 : 23 Cr.L.J. 398 : (1922) A.I.R. (A.) 191 : 4 U.P.L.R. (A.) 142. I, therefore, set aside the order of the District Magistrate. The case will be laid before the District Magistrate again and it will be open to him, if he, on such evidence as may be laid before him, finds that the danger of a breach of the peace no longer exists, to set aside the bonds on this ground.


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