Skip to content


Sheikh Abdul Rashid and ors. Vs. Sheikh Momtaz - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in76Ind.Cas.431
AppellantSheikh Abdul Rashid and ors.
RespondentSheikh Momtaz
Cases ReferredHariDass Sanyal v. Saritulla
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 437 - further enquiry, when to be directed. - .....were discharged under section 253, criminal procedure code. the order of the learned sessions judge directing further enquiry is based solely on the ground that he gives less weight to the discrepancies in the evidence than has been given by the trying magistrate. on the authority of the full bench ruling in the case of haridass sanyal v. saritulla 15 c. 608 : 13 ind. jur. 55 : 7 ind. dec. (n.s.) 989 (f.b.), the sessions judge acted within his power in directing a reconsideration of the evidence. but we think that on the facts of the present case he did no exercise his discretion properly. the try(sic) magistrate in his judgment has discussed the evidence carefully and has given reasons which, in our opinion, are sufficient to justify his conclusion that the evidence of the.....
Judgment:

1. This Rule is directed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge of Mushidabad directing further enquiry under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Cade, into the case in which the petitioners were discharged under Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code. The order of the learned Sessions Judge directing further enquiry is based solely on the ground that he gives less weight to the discrepancies in the evidence than has been given by the Trying Magistrate. On the authority of the Full Bench ruling in the case of HariDass Sanyal v. Saritulla 15 C. 608 : 13 Ind. Jur. 55 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 989 (F.B.), the Sessions Judge acted within his power in directing a reconsideration of the evidence. But we think that on the facts of the present case he did no exercise his discretion properly. The Try(sic) Magistrate in his judgment has discussed the evidence carefully and has given reasons which, in our opinion, are sufficient to justify his conclusion that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was insufficient to support the charge of rioting. In cases like the present, where no fresh evidence is likely to be produced on further enquiry, we think the superior Court should hesitate before exercising its powers under Section 437, Criminal Procedure Code, unless there are more palpable errors in the decision of the lower Court than there are in the present case. We do not think that further' enquiry will serve any useful purpose. Taking this view of the case, we make this' Rule absolute and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge-dated 18th November 1922 directing further enquiry into, the case against the petitioners who have been discharged.


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