SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(All) 301

P.K.JAIN
MAYA SHANKER PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.S.Chaturvedi, P.N.KUSHWAHA, S.R.SINGH,

P. K. JAIN, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for State. It appears from the record that revisionist Maya Shanker Pandey was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Eastern Railway, Moghal Sarai, District Varanasi under Sections 113/122 of the Indian Railways Act and section 332,1. P. C. one years R. I. under Section 332, I. P. C. , one months R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 150 under Section 122, Indian Railways Act and to pay a penalty of Rs. 11. 55 under Section 113 of the Indian Railways Act.

2. The revisionist preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Varanasi which was rejected on the ground that the Sessions Judge, Varanasi had no jurisdiction. Since the offence was committed within local P. S. G. R. P. , Dildar Nagar in District Ghazipur, the Magistrate exercised jurisdiction over an area beyond the limits of Varanasi, the Sessions Judge, Varanasi held that Railway Magistrate Varanasi is also the Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st Class of the remaining Districts of Varanasi Zone (Railway) and when he tries a case of a District other than Varanasi, the functions as Judicial Magistrate 1st class of that District and this is so









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top