Skip to content


The Queen Empress Vs. Reolah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR14Cal887
AppellantThe Queen Empress
RespondentReolah and ors.
Excerpt:
practice - criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 435--revision by the high court; revision where lower court has concurrent jurisdiction with high court. - .....on discovering that the applicant had not, before coming up to the high court, applied to the sessions judge, and bening divided in opinion as to whether the applicant was legally bound so first to apply to the sessions judge, directed that the application should be renewed, if neeessary, before the criminal bench after the re-opening of the court after the vacation.3 on the 1st november 1887, the application was renewed before mr. justice prinsep and mr. justic pigot, who, after hearing mr. bell on behalf of the applicant, and after consultation with the chief justice and the other judges of the court on the point, decided that they would hear the application, intimating that the practice of the court should be understood to be, that in cases where the district court or magistrate.....
Judgment:

1. This was an application made, on 7th October 1887, during the vacation, to set aside, a convication and sentence of the Deputy Magistrate of Giridhi, on the ground that be had heared and tried cross cases of rioting together,and had thereby prejucied the applicants in their defence.

2. Befor bearing the application, the Court (Mr. Justice Norris and Mr. Justice Ghose), on discovering that the applicant had not, before coming up to the High Court, applied to the Sessions Judge, and bening divided in opinion as to whether the applicant was legally bound so first to apply to the Sessions Judge, directed that the application should be renewed, if neeessary, before the Criminal Bench after the re-opening of the Court after the vacation.

3 On the 1st November 1887, the application was renewed before Mr. Justice Prinsep and Mr. Justic Pigot, who, after hearing Mr. Bell on behalf of the applicant, and after consultation with the Chief Justice and the other Judges of the Court on the point, decided that they would hear the application, intimating that the practice of the Court should be understood to be, that in cases where the District Court or Magistrate has concurrent revisional jurisdiction with the High Court, an application in revision will not be entertained save on some special ground snown unless a previous application shall have been made to the lower Court; but) that in cases in which concurrent jurisdiction is not possessed by the lower Court no such generalexists.


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