Skip to content


Baisnab Charan Das Vs. AmIn Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Cal55
AppellantBaisnab Charan Das
RespondentAmIn Ali
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Anand Sorup
Excerpt:
- .....of that sub-division. the code of criminal procedure makes no provision for delivery of judgment written by the magistrate who heard the case after he had ceased to have jurisdiction in the district. even if the magistrate, babu srish kumar sen, after his transfer, had himself delivered this judgment, he would have acted without jurisdiction, as was held in the case of empress v. anand sorup (1881) 3 all. 536. it is contended on behalf of the opposite-party that section 350 would apply. section 350 would, under certain circumstances, give the magistrate at karimgunge jurisdiction to decide the case on evidence recorded by his predecessor, but it could not give him jurisdiction to deliver a judgment written by his predecessor. we must hold that the conviction and sentence passed on the.....
Judgment:

1. This case was heard by Babu Srish Kumar Sen, the Sub-divisional Officer of Karimgunge, in the District of Sylhet, and after the hearing of evidence the trying Magistrate was transferred to Hailakandi in the District of Cachar, and from there he sent a written judgment which was delivered at Kariragunge by Moulvi Mahomed Chowdhury, the Magistrate in charge of that Sub-division. The Code of Criminal Procedure makes no provision for delivery of judgment written by the Magistrate who heard the case after he had ceased to have jurisdiction in the District. Even if the Magistrate, Babu Srish Kumar Sen, after his transfer, had himself delivered this judgment, he would have acted without jurisdiction, as was held in the case of Empress v. Anand Sorup (1881) 3 All. 536. It is contended on behalf of the opposite-party that Section 350 would apply. Section 350 would, under certain circumstances, give the Magistrate at Karimgunge jurisdiction to decide the case on evidence recorded by his predecessor, but it could not give him jurisdiction to deliver a judgment written by his predecessor. We must hold that the conviction and sentence passed on the accused were passed without jurisdiction.

2. We accordingly make this Rule absolute. We set aside the conviction and sentence, and direct that the petitioners be retried. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.


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