Skip to content


Musammat Ram Debi Vs. Gobind Sahai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in61Ind.Cas.646
AppellantMusammat Ram Debi
RespondentGobind Sahai and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 250 - 'the magistrate by whom the case is heard,' meaning of. - - the procedure has been perfectly regular......i do not agree with the view of the learned district magistrate. the words in section 250 of the code of criminal procedure, 'the magistrate by whom the case is heard,' mean 'the magistrate by whom the case is decided.' i do not take the words to mean that, when the magistrate who has decided the case has not heard the evidence, he is to be considered a person other than the magistrate who has heard the case. if the words were interpreted in that way, it would be impossible to award compensation under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure in a case in which one magistrate has heard the evidence and another magistrate has decided the case without hearing the evidence, being under no necessity to bear the evidence, under the provisions of section 350 of the code of criminal.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. I do not agree with the view of the learned District Magistrate. The words in Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 'the Magistrate by whom the case is heard,' mean 'the Magistrate by whom the case is decided.' I do not take the words to mean that, when the Magistrate who has decided the case has not heard the evidence, he is to be considered a person other than the Magistrate who has heard the case. If the words were interpreted in that way, it would be impossible to award compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case in which one Magistrate has heard the evidence and another Magistrate has decided the case without hearing the evidence, being under no necessity to bear the evidence, under the provisions of Section 350 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a Magistrate who has heard and recorded the evidence ceases to exercise jurisdiction and is succeeded by another Magistrate, the latter may act upon the evidence previously recorded or resume on the witnesses, as he wishes, provided the accused does not object to the Magistrate acting upon the evidence recorded by his predecessor and the accused is not prejudiced by the fact that the witnesses are not re-heard. In this case the hearing was made over to the Magistrate who decided it under the provisions of Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedure has been perfectly regular. The Magistrate who passed the order of discharge heard only a portion of the evidence himself. He was under no obligation to hear the remainder as the accused did not wish the witnesses to be resummoned. On the view taken by the learned District Magistrate it would be impossible in this case to grant compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in any circumstances, for the Magistrate who recorded the greater part of the evidence was not the Magistrate who discharged the accused. That Magistrate could certainly not award compensation and if the Magistrate who passed the order of discharge is not considered to be the Magistrate who heard the case, no one could award compensation. There does not appear to me to be any difficulty in the matter. The section does not say the Magistrate by whom the evidence is heard but the Magistrate by whom the case is heard, In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order awarding compensation. That order will stand. The record will be returned.


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