Skip to content


Ram Gir Vs. Ravisaran Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935All883
AppellantRam Gir
RespondentRavisaran Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- 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. - i am not satisfied that in substance there was no proper enquiry into the complaints made and i am not prepared to interfere in revision merely because there have been technical irregularities in procedure......is the subject of an appeal in this court. the complaints were that the zemindars had forcibly removed the applicant's lock from a room in the temple and had removed certain articles which were used for the purposes of the temple and when the applicant interfered that he was beaten and insulted by having his beard pulled.2. the joint magistrate made local enquiries and came to the conclusion that the story was not true. it was obviously in any case a matter which seems to have been more or less of a civil nature. the complaint makes it clear that it was not the violence used against the applicant which was emphasised at that time. the complaint is that the magistrate did not take the applicant's evidence and also the technical point that he did not personally examine the applicant.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Allsop, J.

1. This is an application in revision. The Joint Magistrate of Benares, dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C., two complaints which were made by the applicant. The applicant is a goshain who has an interest in a temple in the village of Kaithi. There has been a dispute between the goshains and the zemindars of that village over their rights in this temple. I am told that the Subordinate Judge has decided that the parties both have rights but his decision is the subject of an appeal in this Court. The complaints were that the zemindars had forcibly removed the applicant's lock from a room in the temple and had removed certain articles which were used for the purposes of the temple and when the applicant interfered that he was beaten and insulted by having his beard pulled.

2. The Joint Magistrate made local enquiries and came to the conclusion that the story was not true. It was obviously in any case a matter which seems to have been more or less of a civil nature. The complaint makes it clear that it was not the violence used against the applicant which was emphasised at that time. The complaint is that the Magistrate did not take the applicant's evidence and also the technical point that he did not personally examine the applicant and record his statement when the complaints were presented. I am not satisfied that in substance there was no proper enquiry into the complaints made and I am not prepared to interfere in revision merely because there have been technical irregularities in procedure. I do not say that such irregularities did occur, but if they did occur, they are no sufficient grounds for interference. It has been stressed that the complainant has not received justice. It is not the object, of the Criminal Courts primarily to do justice between a complainant and an accused person. Their primary object is to punish crime in the interests of the State. If a complainant is considering his own private grievances he can seek redress by way of damages in a Civil Court. I see no reason to interfere, and I dismiss this application.


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