Skip to content


Abdul Ghafoor and anr. Vs. Raza Husain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.829
AppellantAbdul Ghafoor and anr.
RespondentRaza Husain
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Matabadal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code act v of 1898, sections 433, 476 - sanction to prosecute given by assistant collector--high court's power to interjere on criminal side--duty of court to inquire--accused not given opportunity to cross-examine witnesses--legality--irregularity. - interpretation of statutes definition clause: [markandey katju & h.l. dattu, jj] meaning given to an expression in one statute cannot be applied to another statute......in the exercise of its revisional powers on the criminal side, under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure, to interfere with such orders. the full beech ruling in the case referred to is binding upon me. the learned vakil for the applicants prays that permission may be given to him to alter the application into a civil revision inasmuch as the order passed by the assistant collector of 1st class is based on the statements of the witnesses who were not allowed to be cross-examined by the applicants. in chota sadoe peadah v. bhoobun chuckerbutty 9 w.r. 3 cr. it was laid down that the preliminary inquiry need not be held in the presence of the accused, and in queen-empress v. matabadal 15 a. 392 it was ruled that when a magistrate takes action under section 476 of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Karamat Husain, J.

1. In this case an Assistant Collector of is Class acting under Section 46, Criminal Procedure Code, directed the applicants to be prosecuted under Section (sic) the Indian Penal Code. The applicants appealed to the learnt d District Judge of Banda for revoking the sanction. The application was rejected by the learned District Judge and the order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed. The applicants came to this Court in revision on the criminal side. The learned Vakil for the opposite party, relying en the Full Bench ruling of this Court in In the matter if the petition of Bhup Kunwar 23 A. 249 : 1 Cr. L.J. 73 : A.W.N. (1904) 15, contends that the High Court has no jurisdiction in the exercise of its revisional powers on the criminal side, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to interfere with such orders. The Full Beech Ruling in the case referred to is binding upon me. The learned Vakil for the applicants prays that permission may be given to him to alter the application into a Civil revision inasmuch as the order passed by the Assistant Collector of 1st Class is based on the statements of the witnesses who were not allowed to be cross-examined by the applicants. In Chota Sadoe Peadah v. Bhoobun Chuckerbutty 9 W.R. 3 Cr. it was laid down that the preliminary inquiry need not be held in the presence of the accused, and in Queen-Empress v. Matabadal 15 A. 392 it was ruled that when a Magistrate takes action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary to the validity of his order that he should hold a preliminary inquiry. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Magistrate, in refusing to give the applicants an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, did not act in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. For the above reasons I reject the application.


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