Skip to content


Dayanath Taluqdar Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR33Cal8
AppellantDayanath Taluqdar
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
security for good behaviour - further inquiry--district, magistrate, power of--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 110. - .....for their good behaviour under section 110 of the criminal procedure code. the case was tried by a deputy magistrate, and he bound them down. an appeal was made to the district magistrate, and he sot aside the deputy magistrate's order and directed that there should be a further inquiry, at the same time requiring increased security from these applicants. against that order a motion was made to the sessions judge, and while that motion was pending, the deputy magistrate proceeded to hold the further inquiry directed by the district magistrate.2. a rule was obtained from this (joint calling on the district magistrate to show cause why the proceedings taken against these applicants should not be transferred to some other magistrate than the sub-divisional magistrate of tangail, or why such.....
Judgment:

Pargiter and Woodroffe JJ.

1. These ten applicants were called upon to show cause why they should not be bound down to give security for their good behaviour under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The case was tried by a Deputy Magistrate, and he bound them down. An appeal was made to the District Magistrate, and he sot aside the Deputy Magistrate's order and directed that there should be a further inquiry, at the same time requiring increased security from these applicants. Against that order a motion was made to the Sessions Judge, and while that motion was pending, the Deputy Magistrate proceeded to hold the further inquiry directed by the District Magistrate.

2. A rule was obtained from this (Joint calling on the District Magistrate to show cause why the proceedings taken against these applicants should not be transferred to some other Magistrate than the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Tangail, or why such further order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit.

3. We have read the explanation submitted by the District. Magistrate, and the proceedings in the Sessions Judge's Court also have been laid before us. It appears to us that the District Magistrate had no power under the law to order the further inquiry in the terms in which he did. It will be best therefore for us to deal with the matter from that point of view.

4. Accordingly we set aside the District Magistrate's order for further inquiry, leaving him, if he thinks it necessary, to lake any further proceedings against these applicants which he may be authorised by law to, do upon entirely fresh materials.


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