Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
ALLSOP, J.
Ramu alias Langar through Bhairon - Appellant
Versus
Murli Das - Respondent
Decided On : 01-09-1942
ORDER
Allsop, J. - This reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Benares has been made under a misapprehension of the nature of proceedings u/s 133, Criminal P. C. Those proceedings are not intended to settle private dispute between two members of the public. They are not originated by the filing of complaint or something of that kind. Any person naturally can give a Magistrate information of the existence of any state of affairs, but when the Magistrate acts on that information, he is acting suo motu. The person who gives the information has no rights in the matter and is not a person who may be described as a party to the proceedings. If the Magistrate issues a preliminary order u/s 133 for the removal of an obstruction or something of that kind, the question which arises is one between the Magistrate on the one side on behalf of the public at large and the person, on the other, to whom notice has been issued. The person to whom notice has been issued may allege that the property with respect to which there is a dispute is his own private property and if the Magistrate thinks that there is any evidence in support of this contention, he must stay the proceedings u/s 139-A. If the person does not claim the property to be his private property, then he should either show cause why the order of the Magistrate was unreasonable or he should ask the Magistrate to appoint a jury, but it is surely open to the Magistrate at any stage for good reasons shown to refuse to take any further action in the matter. The informant has no rights in these proceedings. If he wishes to obtain any redress in his personal capacity he can go to a civil Court. This prevalent idea that criminal cases and cases under the Criminal Procedure Code are contests between private persons gives rise to a great waste of time and general confusion. There is no force in this reference and I reject it. Let the papers be returned to the Court below.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
