Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Daulat Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in92Ind.Cas.743
AppellantEmperor
RespondentDaulat Singh and anr.
Cases ReferredCr. L.J. and Emperor v. John Francis Lobo
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 435, 438 - sessions judge, order of--district magistrate power of, to make reference to high court. - - the order complained of was passed on 22nd october 1924. the reference of the district magistrate was not made till the 10th october 1925. the period for which the accused were originally bound over had already expired when the reference was made.daniels, j.1. this is a reference by the district magistrate of bareilly submitted through the sessions judge asking this court to modify in revision an order passed by the additional sessions judge in a case under section 110 of the cr.p.c. section 435 does not authorise the district magistrate to make any such reference. he can refer the proceedings of any inferior court but he is not entitled to question the propriety of an order passed by a court of session. his proper course when he considers that action is necessary is to move the government to file an application in revision. this has been pointed out many times by this court and by other high courts, e.g., emperor v. javina rai 28 a. 91 : 2 a.l.j. 589 : a.w.n. (1905) 198 : 2 cr. l.j. 515, emperor v. ganga 23 ind. cas. 1004 : 36 a......
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is a Reference by the District Magistrate of Bareilly submitted through the Sessions Judge asking this Court to modify in revision an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. Section 435 does not authorise the District Magistrate to make any such reference. He can refer the proceedings of any inferior Court but he is not entitled to question the propriety of an order passed by a Court of Session. His proper course when he considers that action is necessary is to move the Government to file an application in revision. This has been pointed out many times by this Court and by other High Courts, e.g., Emperor v. Javina Rai 28 A. 91 : 2 A.L.J. 589 : A.W.N. (1905) 198 : 2 Cr. L.J. 515, Emperor v. Ganga 23 Ind. Cas. 1004 : 36 A. 378 : 12 A.L.J. 519 : 15 Cr. L.J. and Emperor v. John Francis Lobo 36 Ind. Cas. 577 : 41 B. 47 : 18 Bom. L.R. 796 : 17 Cr. L.J. 529. The reference is also made very late. The order complained of was passed on 22nd October 1924. The reference of the District Magistrate was not made till the 10th October 1925. The period for which the accused were originally bound over had already expired when the reference was made. The delay is not explained and would in itself be a sufficient ground for refusing to Interfere.

2. Lat the record be returned.


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