Skip to content


Ramharicohakraverty and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar Manna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in69Ind.Cas.461
AppellantRamharicohakraverty and ors.
RespondentSantosh Kumar Manna
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 421, 439 - appeal once admitted, whether can be dismissed summarily--appeal, dismissal of--magistrate called upon to show cause why it should not be re-heard--duty of magistrate. - .....the first and second grounds are, that ' the learned district magistrate's order dismissing the appeal summarily is not proper, ' and, ' that the proper disposal of; the appeal required at least an examination of the document, exhibit a, and the same not having been done, the appeal has not been properly disposed of.'3. the petitioners were convicted and they appealed to the district magistrate who dismissed the appeal summarily. two of my learned brothers thought it desirable that the learned district magistrate should show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard, the explanation which has been forwarded by the district magistrate is as fellows: 'l should not be justified in taking up their lordships' time over this trumpery case.' in my judgment this rule should be made.....
Judgment:

Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.

1. This was a Rule sailing upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the appeal should not be re heard on the first and second grounds mentioned in the petition.

2. The first and second grounds are, that ' The learned District Magistrate's order dismissing the appeal summarily is not proper, ' and, ' That the proper disposal of; the appeal required at least an examination of the document, Exhibit A, and the same not having been done, the appeal has not been properly disposed of.'

3. The petitioners were convicted and they appealed to the District Magistrate who dismissed the appeal summarily. Two of my learned brothers thought it desirable that the learned District Magistrate should show cause why the appeal should not be re-heard, The explanation which has been forwarded by the District Magistrate is as fellows: 'l should not be justified in taking up their Lordships' time over this trumpery case.' In my judgment this Rule should be made absolute. The learned Judges on reading the judgment same to the conclusion that it was not a case which should have been dismissed summarily and I see no reason for differing from that opinion. Consequently the Rule should be made absolute.

4. It appears from the order-sheet that there was an order recorded on the 23rd January 1922 as follows: 'Admit appeal.' It also appears that the learned Magistrate heard the Pleader on the 13th February 1922 and then on the 25th February, he dismissed the appeal summarily, If the learned Magistrate did, in fait, admit the appeal on the 23rd January 1922 in the way in which. the admission of an appeal is generally understood, it must be taken that he bad no jurisdiction to dismiss it summarily. That is an additional reason for making this Rule absolute. But I do not base my judgment on that ground. The first reason which I hare stated is sufficient. I desire to add that in view of the fast that two learned Judges of this Court issued a Rule calling open the District Magistrate to show cause why the appeal should not be re heard it was hardly in accordance with, the respect usually paid to the decisions of this Court for the Magistrate to give no explanation beyond saying that he would not be justified in taking up the Judges' time over such a trumpery case. The appeal has been summarily dismissed and no reasons were given for the learned District Magistrate's decision and when the Rule was issued this Court was at least entitled to know the reasons which actuated the learned District Magistrate in arriving at his decision.

5. The Rule is accordingly made absolute and the case remitted in order that the appeal may be ra-heard.

Panton, J.

6. I agree.


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