Skip to content


Jatra Shekh Vs. Reazat Shekh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR20Cal483
AppellantJatra Shekh
RespondentReazat Shekh and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), sections 199, 238 - penal code (act lv of 1860), section 366, 498--cognizance of offence by court--enticing away married woman--conviction for minor offence where evidence is insufficient for grave offence--appealable sentence, imposition of. - .....intention of the law is to prevent magistrates inquiring of their own motion into cases connected with marriage, unless the husband or other person authorised moves them to do so : and we think it cannot be hold that a conviction such as was had in the present case was contrary to the intention of the law in this respect.2. we do not think we should interfere with the conviction of either prisoner.3. although in the present case we do not think we should interfere, we fully agree with the general principle as to the infliction of non-appealable sentences referred to by the sessions judge. we observe with approval that the deputy magistrate recognizes, and undertakes to follow it, as he says he usually does.
Judgment:
ORDER

Pigot and Hill, JJ.

1. We think that when the husband is complainant and brings his complaint under Section 366, a conviction under Section 498 may properly be had, if the evidence be such as to justify a conviction for the minor offence, and yet insufficient for a conviction for the graver one. We think that such a case is within the intention of Section 238. The intention of the law is to prevent Magistrates inquiring of their own motion into cases connected with marriage, unless the husband or other person authorised moves them to do so : and we think it cannot be hold that a conviction such as was had in the present case was contrary to the intention of the law in this respect.

2. We do not think we should interfere with the conviction of either prisoner.

3. Although in the present case we do not think we should interfere, we fully agree with the general principle as to the infliction of non-appealable sentences referred to by the Sessions Judge. We observe with approval that the Deputy Magistrate recognizes, and undertakes to follow it, as he says he usually does.


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