Skip to content


Jhau Lal and anr. Vs. Pir Bakhsh and anr. and Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in2Ind.Cas.453
AppellantJhau Lal and anr.
RespondentPir Bakhsh and anr. and Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 4, clause (h), 190, 191 - cognizance of offence by magistrate--complaint. - - in the petition of complaint filed by pir bakhsh and mangal it was stated that the accused were interfering with persons who came to sell cattle and had assaulted them as well as the complainants......two accused, beni ram and jhau lal, be set aside as also the order passed under section 106 of the code of criminal procedure directing' them to furnish security to keep the peace. the learned judge was of opinion that the magistrate took action under section 190, clause (c), of the code of criminal procedure and was,' therefore, bound to adopt the procedure laid down in section 191 of that code. we are of opinion that action was taken by the magistrate not under clause (c) of section 190, but under clause (a) of that section as a complaint was made to the magistrate of facts which constituted the offence of which the accused were convicted. in the petition of complaint filed by pir bakhsh and mangal it was stated that the accused were interfering with persons who came to sell cattle and.....
Judgment:

1. This case has been referred to us by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly with the recommendation that the conviction of the two accused, Beni Ram and Jhau Lal, be set aside as also the order passed under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing' them to furnish security to keep the peace. The learned Judge was of opinion that the Magistrate took action under Section 190, Clause (c), of the Code of Criminal Procedure and was,' therefore, bound to adopt the procedure laid down in Section 191 of that Code. We are of opinion that action was taken by the Magistrate not under Clause (c) of Section 190, but under Clause (a) of that section as a complaint was made to the Magistrate of facts which constituted the offence of which the accused were convicted. In the petition of complaint filed by Pir Bakhsh and Mangal it was stated that the accused were interfering with persons who came to sell cattle and had assaulted them as well as the complainants. This petition was made with a view to the Magistrate taking action in regard to acts committed by the accused. It was, therefore, a complaint within the definition of that term as contained in Clause (h) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was upon this complaint that action was taken by the Magistrate and not upon information otherwise received or upon personal knowledge, as mentioned in Clause (c), Section 190. Section 191, therefore, had no application. There is nothing to show that when the accused appeared before the Magistrate the particulars of the offence of which they were accused were not stated to them. On the contrary from the questions put to one of the accused, as recorded by the Magistrate, it appears that all the facts stated in the petition of complaint were substantially put to him and he was asked to say whether he had or had not committed the acts alleged in the complaint. It is clear, therefore, that the accused were not prejudiced by any action of the Magistrate and we see no reason to interfere with the convictions and sentences and the order passed under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We direct that the record be returned.


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