Skip to content


Baishnab Charan Das and ors. Vs. AmIn Ali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in72Ind.Cas.953
AppellantBaishnab Charan Das and ors.
RespondentAmIn Ali
Cases ReferredEmpress of India v. Anand Sarup
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act of 1898), section 350--transfer of magistrate--judgment written after transfer--delivery of judgment by successor--jurisdiction. - .....sen, after his transfer, had himself delivered this judgment he would have acted without jurisdiction as was held in the case of empress of india v. anand sarup 3 a. 563 : a.w.n. (1881) 37 : 2 ind. dec. (n.s.) 343. it is contended on behalf of the opposite party that section 350 would apply. section 350 would, under certain diet instances, give the magistrate at karimganj jurisdiction to decide the case on evidence recorded by his predecessor but it could not give him jurisdiction to deliver judgment written by his predecessor. we must hold that the conviction and sentence passed on the accused were passed without jurisdiction.2. we accordingly make this rule absolute. we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the petitioners be re-tried. the fines, if paid, will be.....
Judgment:

1. This case was heard by Babu Siis Kimar Sen, the Sub-Divisional Officer of Karimganj, in the District of Sylhet, and alter the heating of evidence the Trying Magistrate was transferred to Haila Kandi in the Distirct of Cachar and from there he sent a written judgment which was delivered at Karimganj by M. Muhammad Chowdhury, the Magistrate in charge of that Sub-Division. The Code of Criminal Procedure makes no provision for delivery of judgment written by the Magistrate who heard the case after he had ceased to have jurisdiction in the District. Even if the Magistrate, Babu Sris Kumar Sen, after his transfer, had himself delivered this judgment he would have acted without jurisdiction as was held in the case of Empress of India v. Anand Sarup 3 A. 563 : A.W.N. (1881) 37 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 343. It is contended on behalf of the opposite party that Section 350 would apply. Section 350 would, under certain diet instances, give the Magistrate at Karimganj jurisdiction to decide the case on evidence recorded by his predecessor but it could not give him jurisdiction to deliver judgment written by his predecessor. We must hold that the conviction and sentence passed on the accused were passed without jurisdiction.

2. We accordingly make this Rule absolute. We set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the petitioners be re-tried. The fines, if paid, will be refunded.


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