Skip to content


The State Vs. Sadhu Singh Pahusingh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. No. 104 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1957MP47; 1957CriLJ641
ActsMadhya Pradesh Public Security Act, 1953 - Sections 14; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 149
AppellantThe State
RespondentSadhu Singh Pahusingh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateGovernment Adv.
Respondent AdvocateJ.M. Anand, Adv.
DispositionRevision dismissed
Cases Referred and Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad
Excerpt:
- .....j.1. the noorabad police put up a challan before the special judge, exercising powers under the madhya bharat public security act for charges under sections 302, 307 and 149, i. p. c. on the facts disclosed by the police, the special fudge framed charges under sections 302, 307, 149, 324, 325 and 326, i p c. thereafter the court returned the challan to the police on the ground that it was incompetent to try the case under sections 149, 324, 325 and 326, i. p. c. the police has filed this revision against the return of the challan.2. the learned government advocate concedes that the special judge is not empowered to try offences under sections 324, 325 and 326, i. p. c. but he contends that the special judge can try an offence under section 149, i. p. c. but this point has been.....
Judgment:
ORDER

A.H. Khan, J.

1. The Noorabad Police put up a challan before the Special Judge, exercising powers under the Madhya Bharat Public Security Act for charges under Sections 302, 307 and 149, I. P. C. On the facts disclosed by the Police, the Special fudge framed charges under Sections 302, 307, 149, 324, 325 and 326, I P C. Thereafter the Court returned the challan to the Police on the ground that it was incompetent to try the case under Sections 149, 324, 325 and 326, I. P. C. The Police has filed this revision against the return of the challan.

2. The learned Government Advocate Concedes that the Special Judge is not empowered to try offences under Sections 324, 325 and 326, I. P. C. But he contends that the Special Judge can try an offence under Section 149, I. P. C. But this point has been considered in Sukharam Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, Criminal Revn. No. 99 of 1956: (AIR 1957 Madh B 134) (A) and my learned brother, Dixit, J., has held that a Special Judge constituted under the Madhya Bharat Public Security Act of 1953 is not competent to try a case under Section 149, I. P. C. According to the Supreme Court decisions in Nanakchand v. State of Punjab (S) AIR 1955 SC 274 (B), and Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, (S) AIR 1955 SC 216 (C), Section 149, I. P. C. creates a specific offence and in the list of offences triable by the Special Judge this offence is not included. I agree with my brother that the Special Judge is not competent to try an offence under Section 149, I. P. C.

3. For reasons stated above, the revision is dismissed.


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