Skip to content


Jagabandhu Chawdhuri and anr. Vs. Abdul Sobhan Sarkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Cal480
AppellantJagabandhu Chawdhuri and anr.
RespondentAbdul Sobhan Sarkar
Cases ReferredRam Charan Das v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....is that the judgment in appeal is not in accordance with law ; and the second ground is that the learned district judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in refusing in effect to exercise his own discretion in the matter and to revise the exercise of discretion by the court of first instance, namely, the munsif of thakurgaon. the contention before us is that the learned district judge when the matter came up on appeal before him under section 476-b, criminal p.c., did not approach in the way in which he should have approached it. it was said that under that section the learned judge ought to have gone into the merits of the case as he was bound to do in all appeals before him. this contention seems to me to be well founded. as has been held in ram charan das v......
Judgment:

Mallik, J.

1. This Rule was issued on the District Magistrate of Dinajpur to show cause why the order of the District Judge of Dinajpur dismissing the petitioner's appeal against an order of the Munsif of Thakurgaon making a complaint against the petitioners under Section 476, Criminal P.C., should not be set aside. The rule was issued on two grounds : The first ground is that the judgment in appeal is not in accordance with law ; and the second ground is that the learned District Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law in refusing in effect to exercise his own discretion in the matter and to revise the exercise of discretion by the Court of first instance, namely, the Munsif of Thakurgaon. The contention before us is that the learned District Judge when the matter came up on appeal before him under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., did not approach in the way in which he should have approached it. It was said that under that section the learned Judge ought to have gone into the merits of the case as he was bound to do in all appeals before him. This contention seems to me to be well founded. As has been held in Ram Charan Das v. Emperor : AIR1925All544 , the legislature intended that an appellate Court in cases of appeals under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., should reconsider the entire matter on its merits. This the learned District Judge in the present case has not done. From his judgment it appears that according to him there were two distinct views which could be taken of the facts of the case and he disposed of the appeal before him by only holding that the learned Munsif had, before passing his order, duly considered the facts of the case and by saying that he (the District Judge) would not be justified in interfering with the exercise by the Munsif of his discretion. The learned District Judge in his judgment nowhere says what his own view of the facts of the case was. This certainly was not a disposal of the matter after a full consideration of the entire case on its merits.

2. The result is that Rule is made absolute. The order of the District Judge dismissing the appeal is set aside and it is directed that the appeal under Section 476-B be reheard by the learned District Judge in the light of the observations made above.

3. Let the stay of proceedings continue pending the disposal of the appeal.

Pearson, J.

4. I agree.


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