Skip to content


Jogi Venkiah and ors. Vs. Station House Officer of Narasapur and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1922Mad78; 67Ind.Cas.339; (1922)42MLJ401
AppellantJogi Venkiah and ors.
RespondentStation House Officer of Narasapur and anr.
Cases ReferredQueen Empress v. Ahmed I.L.
Excerpt:
- .....lie' cannot cover the case of a sub-divisional magistrate whose power to hear appeals depends on a delegation by the district magistrate under section 407 clause (2). whatever view we might be inclined to take on this latter point, we do not feel justified in refusing to follow the two cases quotted to us, which are criminal revision cases 525 of 1905 and 84 of 1908.we must therefore hold that the court which had power to modify the stationary sub-magistrate's order in this case was the district magistrate and not the sub-divisional magistrate, and that the sub-divisional magistrate's order dismissing the appeal was right. the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Judgment:

1. In this case the Stationary Sub Magistrate of Narasapur, in acquitting a person charged with an offence under Section 406, made an order under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, that certain jewels which were the subject-matter of the charge should be returned to the complainant. An appeal against this order was preferred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhimavaram. He dismissed it on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the case ended in acquittal.

2.The jurisdiction of the court to vary an order under Section 517 is conferred by Section 520 which speaks of 'any court of Appeal, confirmation, reference or revision '. The meaning of these words has been differently interpreted by this Court and by the Bombay High Court. The latter has held in In re Khema Rukhad I.L.R(1918) . 42 Bom. 664 that the words 'Court of Appeal' mean the Court to which an appeal lies in the particular case. This Court has held in Queen Empress v. Ahmed I.L.R(1886) Mad. 448 that they mean the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the court which passed the order under Section 517. It is on this latter ruling that petitioner depends in arguing his case before us, but, unfortunately it is of no use to him because, in two subsequent cases, different Benches of this Court have held that the words 'Court to which appeals ordinarily lie' cannot cover the case of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate whose power to hear appeals depends on a delegation by the District Magistrate under Section 407 clause (2). Whatever view we might be inclined to take on this latter point, we do not feel justified in refusing to follow the two cases quotted to us, which are Criminal Revision Cases 525 of 1905 and 84 of 1908.

We must therefore hold that the court which had power to modify the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's Order in this case was the District Magistrate and not the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order dismissing the appeal was right. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.


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