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

1952 Supreme(All) 147

BEG
State – Appellant
Versus
Baijnath – Respondent


Advocates:
P.N. Chaudhri, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State; D.N. Hathwal, for Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 22.

ORDER :- This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Bara Banki for quashing the order of commitment made by the Judicial Officer of Fatehpur against twenty-two accused. This reference has been made under the following circumstances :

2. The twenty-two accused committed to the court of session were initially tried by the committing Magistrate who started proceedings in the case against them not as a court of enquiry but as a trial court. He treated the case as a warrant case. Accordingly he framed a charge on 9th January 1951 under S.254. After the proceedings had been gone through up to a certain stage it was pointed out to him that one of the offences for which the accused were being tried was that under S.330 which was exclusively triable by the court of session. Thereupon the court proceeded under S.347, Criminal P.C. but failed to observe the provisions of Ch. XVIII in so far as he omitted to frame a charge under S.210, Criminal P.C.

He, however, proceeded to pass an order of commitment.

3.The result of this irregularity of proceeding in the committing Magistrates court

was that the case reached the court of session without a charge. Under section 210, Criminal P.C.














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