Skip to content


Musammat Makhni Vs. Farzand Ali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All52; 55Ind.Cas.478
AppellantMusammat Makhni
RespondentFarzand Ali and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 209 - case triable by court of session--magistrate, whether can dispose of case. - - he seems to have overlooked that if a person does bring a case of that kind, the law provides means whereby he can be brought to account musammat makhni and her advisers must have known that if the sessions court should find a case of this kind to be of that nature, there is a strong probability that punishment will overtake them......prayer is that an order passed by the district magistrate of mirzapur, whereby he discharged five accused persons before him, persons accused of an offence under section 330, indian penal code, may be revised, and a further enquiry directed. one of the persons accused is farzand ali, who is described as being a petty zemindar of mauza manikpura. the others are persons more or less connected with the police, and one of them is abu muhammad khan, the sub-lnspector in charge of thana ahraura.2. the charge made against the accused is a serious one, namely, of having beaten musammat makhni, causing hurt to her to extort a confession and to compel restoration of property alleged to have been stolen by her. the offence is triable by the court of session.3. the district magistrate held a.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. The petitioner before me is one Musammat Makhni. Her prayer is that an order passed by the District Magistrate of Mirzapur, whereby he discharged five accused persons before him, persons accused of an offence under Section 330, Indian Penal Code, may be revised, and a further enquiry directed. One of the persons accused is Farzand Ali, who is described as being a petty Zemindar of Mauza Manikpura. The others are persons more or less connected with the Police, and one of them is Abu Muhammad Khan, the Sub-lnspector in charge of Thana Ahraura.

2. The charge made against the accused is a serious one, namely, of having beaten Musammat Makhni, causing hurt to her to extort a confession and to compel restoration of property alleged to have been stolen by her. The offence is triable by the Court of Session.

3. The District Magistrate held a careful enquiry but came to the conclusion which he thus records in his order:

That one or more of the accused ill-treated the woman and that all of them know what happened seems to be not at all improbable : and they are lucky, in view of the unexplained injuries, not to find themselves in the dock of the Sessions Court.

4. Still he came to the conclusion that there was not a case to go before the Court of Session. The evidence did not seem to him such as would justify a conviction that the prosecution evidence was not free from taint. He, therefore, discharged, the accused under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. I purposely abstain from pronouncing any view whatever regarding the evidence. When the case was first before me, one of the contentions was that the provisions of Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been fulfilled and that the Magistrate was not competent to pass an order of discharge until he had fulfilled the conditions laid down there, and the contention was that there was still further evidence which the learned Magistrate ought to have sent for, called and examined. I accordingly asked what was this evidence and what was its nature. A petition has been put before me that there are two witnesses; their names and the nature of their evidence have been put in writing. I have, on several occasions, commented upon the in advisability of Magistrates dealing with oases triable by the Court of Session, and taking upon themselves to some to a conclusion upon the evidence before them, and this case is certainly an illustration of that danger. The District Magistrate, who was not intended by the Code of Criminal Procedure to try a case triable by the Court of Session only, has considered it probable that some offence was committed upon this woman and that the accused know all about it more or less. It was eminently a case for trial by the Court of Session, who is considered an officer more experienced in dealing) with criminal cases and who is generally an officer of higher standing than the Magistrate of the district. The District Magistrate justifies his action in the present case by saying that one or two of the accused were persons of standing, who ought not to be harassed by cases that proclaim in the evidence before him that they are cases which are false, vindictive or frivolous. He seems to have overlooked that if a person does bring a case of that kind, the law provides means whereby he can be brought to account Musammat Makhni and her advisers must have known that if the Sessions Court should find a case of this kind to be of that nature, there is a strong probability that punishment will overtake them. As I said before, I do not pronounce the slightest opinion as to whether the Magistrate was right in what he said or whether Musammat Makhni is or is not able to prove the offence she alleges. The beating of a woman, as described in the evidence, is a very serious offence and the bringing of a false case against a Sub-Inspector of Police and a Zemindar is an equally serious matter. It is a case for the Sessions Court to decide, I set aside the order of discharge and return the case to the District Magistrate of Mirzapur to proceed with it according to law.


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