Skip to content


Mahomed Ershad Ali Khan Choudhry Vs. Saroda Prosad Shaha and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR23Cal37
AppellantMahomed Ershad Ali Khan Choudhry
RespondentSaroda Prosad Shaha and anr.
Cases ReferredBhojal Sonar v. Nirban Singh I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 148, clause 3 - assessment of costs by magistrate other than the magistrate passing the decision andmaking the order for costs. - .....had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. in support of this, the case of bhojal sonar v. nirban singh i.l.r. 21 cal. 609 has been cited. that case no doubt is an authority for the contention, but it has been reconsidered in the case of (gridhar chatterjee v. ebadullah naskar i.l.r. 22 cal. 384, and one of the learned judges who disposed of the former case was one of the learned judges who decided the latter case. although he distinguished the first mentioned case, the effect of the decision was that, when there was an order to pay costs under section 148 by the magistrate deciding the case, another magistrate had jurisdiction to assess the amount of the costs. we are not, therefore, prepared to follow the case of bhojal sonar v. nirban singh i.l.r. 21 cal. 609, and we reject.....
Judgment:

Macpherson and Bannerjee, JJ.

1. We reject this application. The principal ground urged is that the Magistrate, who made the order for the payment of costs under Section 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not at the time assess the amount of costs, and that the District Magistrate, on the transfer of the first mentioned officer, had no jurisdiction to make the assessment. In support of this, the case of Bhojal Sonar v. Nirban Singh I.L.R. 21 Cal. 609 has been cited. That case no doubt is an authority for the contention, but it has been reconsidered in the case of (Gridhar Chatterjee v. Ebadullah Naskar I.L.R. 22 Cal. 384, and one of the learned Judges who disposed of the former case was one of the learned Judges who decided the latter case. Although he distinguished the first mentioned case, the effect of the decision was that, when there was an order to pay costs under Section 148 by the Magistrate deciding the case, another Magistrate had jurisdiction to assess the amount of the costs. We are not, therefore, prepared to follow the case of Bhojal Sonar v. Nirban Singh I.L.R. 21 Cal. 609, and we reject the application.


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