Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Ishwar Dayal Pandey and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All238
AppellantEmperor
Respondentishwar Dayal Pandey and anr.
Cases ReferredKanahya Lal v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....the district magistrate evidently considered that this order was pissed under section 562 of the criminal procedure code, the provisions of which do not apply to an offence under the stamp act. his objection to the order is valid, if the order was really passed under that section. had the learned magistrate not warned the accused for the future, i should have been inclined to regard the order as one of acquittal. in view of the fact that the trying magistrate has, found that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused, an order of acquittal would have been quite regular: see kanahya lal v. emperor [1920] 21 cr.l.j. 54. as the matter has been referred to me, and as the order of the magistrate appears on the face of it to be illegal, i get aside that order of conviction;.....
Judgment:

Kendall, J.

1. This is an application for revision of the order of a Magistrate of the Second Class in a case under Section 62 of the Indian Stamp Act. The order is as follows:

From the statement recorded I find that the offence was not done intentionally by the accused. They were not knowing that two anna stamp was necessary. They have admitted their mistake and expressed their regret and said that nothing was done intentionally. I, therefore, warn them act to do so in future.

2. The District Magistrate evidently considered that this order was pissed under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provisions of which do not apply to an offence under the Stamp Act. His objection to the order is valid, if the order was really passed under that section. Had the learned Magistrate not warned the accused for the future, I should have been inclined to regard the order as one of acquittal. In view of the fact that the trying Magistrate has, found that there was no dishonest intention on the part of the accused, an order of acquittal would have been quite regular: see Kanahya Lal v. Emperor [1920] 21 Cr.L.J. 54. As the matter has been referred to me, and as the order of the Magistrate appears on the face of it to be illegal, I get aside that order of conviction; but I do not think it necessary to direct a retrial. Under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code the applicants Ishwar Dayal Pandey and Nripendra Shanker Misser, are acquitted.


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