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

1922 Supreme(J&K) 159

QAZI MASUD HASAN
Mohd. Ibrahim – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Assistant Advocate General

This is a Criminal Reference by the Sessions Judge of Poonch recommending that the sentence passed against the .applicants in this case may be set aside because they have not been legally tried.

It would appear that the applicants were put on their trial for an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act and were convicted. Under section 17 of the Motor Vehicle Act all offences punishable under the Act are to be tried summarily. That section also provides the class of Magistrates that shall try such cases and they are "no Court inferior to that of a, Magistrate of the 2nd class. The cases were tried by the Magistrate of the first class, Mendar. The learned Sessions Judges argument is that under section 260, Criminal Procedure Code, a Magistrate has to be specially empowered for trying cases summarily and that the Magistrate who tried these cases was not so specially empowered. There is a fallacy in this argument. Every Magistrate is not required to be specially empowered to try cases summarily ; nor does section 260 govern offences under the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 260, Criminal Procedure Code, enumerates the kind of cases that have to be tried summarily. Offences under the Motor Vehic

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