Abdul Ghani vs Emperor - 1902 Supreme(Cal) 61

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1902 Supreme(Cal) 61

STEPHEN, PRINSEP
Abdul Ghani – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ. - The petitioner was convicted by the Magistrate u/s 52 of the Post Office Act (VI of 1898). On appeal the Sessions Judge discharged the accused on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to hold the trial. Further proceedings were then commenced by another Magistrate,' who has committed the accused for trial to the Sessions Court, and on objection taken by him, a Rule has been granted by a Bench of this Court to show cause why the order of commitment should not be set aside upon the ground that, having regard to the order of the Sessions Judge, the Magistrate has no authority to make such commitment. A commitment, it may be observed, can be quashed only on a point of law (see Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). The point of law for which the learned Pleader for the petitioner contends is that, inasmuch as the Sessions Judge in appeal was empowered to make an order for retrial by a Court of competent jurisdiction and had not done so, therefore the Magistrate was without jurisdiction in taking further proceedings. The proceedings taken by the first Magistrate are u/s 530 (b) void, and therefore the proceedings, since taken, can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document