Skip to content


Rakhal Mandal and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in45Ind.Cas.160
AppellantRakhal Mandal and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredKanta Roy Chowdhry v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 107(2), proceedings under, whether can be transferred by district magistrate. - .....question does not now come before this court for the first time. in the case of surjya ranta roy chowdhry v. emperor 31 c. 350 : 1 cr. l.j. 344 the question was argued at the bar and discussed at length, and the learned judges who hearj that case took the view that it was sufficient that the district magistrate should initiate the proceedings. in taking that view they further relied upon the case decided in the high court of allahabad in king-emperor v. munna 24 a. 151 : a.w.n. (901) 203. in a subsequent case in this court in 1909 a divisional bench took the contrary view. but from the report of that case nirbikar chandra mukherji v. emperor 1 ind. cas. 78 : 13 c.w.n. 580 : 9 cr. l.j. 148 it is clear that that was a case not argued at the bar and that consequently the prior decision of.....
Judgment:

1. In these two Rules the only question involved is, whether proceedings initiated by the District Magistrate under the special powers conferred upon him by Section 107(2), Criminal Procedure Code, must be continued to the end in this Court or whether they may be transferred by, him to the Court of some subordinate Magistrate otherwise competent to deal with the matter. This question does not now come before this Court for the first time. In the case of Surjya Ranta Roy Chowdhry v. Emperor 31 C. 350 : 1 Cr. L.J. 344 the question was argued at the Bar and discussed at length, and the learned Judges who hearj that case took the view that it was sufficient that the District Magistrate should initiate the proceedings. In taking that view they further relied upon the case decided in the High Court of Allahabad in King-Emperor v. Munna 24 A. 151 : A.W.N. (901) 203. In a subsequent case in this Court in 1909 a Divisional Bench took the contrary view. But from the report of that case Nirbikar Chandra Mukherji v. Emperor 1 Ind. Cas. 78 : 13 C.W.N. 580 : 9 Cr. L.J. 148 it is clear that that was a case not argued at the Bar and that consequently the prior decision of this Court in Surjya Kanta Roy Chowdhry v. Emperor 31 C. 350 : 1 Cr. L.J. 344 was not brought to the attention of the learned Judges. Under these circumstances we think that we ought to follow the earlier case Surjya, Kanta Roy Chowdhry v. Emperor 31 C. 350 : 1 Cr. L.J. 344 decided in this Court in 1904.

2. For these reasons we discharge these Rules.


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