Skip to content


Abdul Rashid Sheikh and ors. Vs. Momtaz Sheikh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Cal229
AppellantAbdul Rashid Sheikh and ors.
RespondentMomtaz Sheikh
Cases ReferredHari Dass Sanyal v. Saritulla
Excerpt:
- .....were discharged under section 253, criminal procedure code. the order of the learned sessions judge directing further enquiry is based solely on the ground that he gives less weight to the discrepancies in the evidence than has been given by the trying magistrate. on the authority of the full bench ruling in the case of hari dass sanyal v. saritulla [1888] 15 cal. 608, the sessions judge acted within his power in directing a reconsideration of the evidence. but we think that on the facts of the present case he did not exercise his discretion properly. the trying magistrate in his judgment has discussed the evidence carefully, and has given reasons which in our opinion are sufficient to justify his conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was insufficient to support.....
Judgment:

1. This rule is directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge of Murshidabad directing further enquiry under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, into the case in which the petitioners were discharged under Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the learned Sessions Judge directing further enquiry is based solely on the ground that he gives less weight to the discrepancies in the evidence than has been given by the trying Magistrate. On the authority of the Full Bench ruling in the case of Hari Dass Sanyal v. Saritulla [1888] 15 Cal. 608, the Sessions Judge acted within his power in directing a reconsideration of the evidence. But we think that on the facts of the present case he did not exercise his discretion properly. The trying Magistrate in his judgment has discussed the evidence carefully, and has given reasons which in our opinion are sufficient to justify his conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was insufficient to support the charge of rioting. In cases like the present where no fresh evidence is likely to be produced on further enquiry we think the superior Court should hesitate before exercising its powers under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, unless there are more palpable errors in the decision of the lower Court than there are in the present case. We do not think that further enquiry will serve any useful purpose. Taking this view of the case we make this Rule absolute and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 18th November, 1922 directing further enquiry into the case against the petitioners who have been discharged.


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