Skip to content


Durga Prashad and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.277
AppellantDurga Prashad and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredGrish Chunder Ghosh v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 203 and 437 - discharge--order for re-trial--notice to accused--whether necessary. - .....was closed, he put the money in a box outside the treasury and that the money was in the box. the deputy magistrate on the basis of that application dismissed the complaint under section 203, criminal procedure code. an application in revision was made to the district magistrate who allowed the application and directed that the case be proceeded with under section 204, criminal procedure code, and be decided on the merits.2. the applicant has now applied to this court for revision of the order passed by the district magistrate. as the deputy magistrate based his order on the application of the applicant which was no evidence, the district magistrate was, in my opinion, right to set aside the order and order a further enquiry.3. it is, however, contended that the applicant was entitled.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the trustees of the Ava Estate charged the applicant with an offence under Section 408, Indian Penal Code. The complaint was made on the 13th of September 1910. The applicant on the 14th of September 1910 put in an application to the effect that as the treasury of Ava was closed, he put the money in a box outside the treasury and that the money was in the box. The Deputy Magistrate on the basis of that application dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code. An application in revision was made to the District Magistrate who allowed the application and directed that the case be proceeded with under Section 204, Criminal Procedure Code, and be decided on the merits.

2. The applicant has now applied to this Court for revision of the order passed by the District Magistrate. As the Deputy Magistrate based his order on the application of the applicant which was no evidence, the District Magistrate was, in my opinion, right to set aside the order and order a further enquiry.

3. It is, however, contended that the applicant was entitled to a notice. In support of this contention the case of Queen-Empress v. Chotu 9 A. 52 is quoted. The learned Counsel for the opposite party contends that in such a case no notice is necessary and he relies on Emperor v. Tabarak Zaman Khan A.W.N. (1907)2 88 : 4 A.L.J. 790 : 6 Cr. L.J. 396; Muhammad Mutaqi v. King-Emperor 5 A.L.J. 74 : A.W.N. (1908) 45 : 7 Cr. L.J. 157; Grish Chunder Ghosh v. Emperor 29 C. 457 : 6 C.W.N. 638. In my opinion, notice in such a case is not necessary. The result is that I reject the application.


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