Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Asha Bhathi

Emperor vs Asha Bhathi

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Jul 17, 1913
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/337023

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Reference No. 49 of 1913
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 206-Magistrate-Committal of case-Connection with another case no ground for committal.;A Magistrate of the First Class drew up, in a case of theft, a charge against the accused, but instead of pursuing the trial himself, committed the accused for trial to the Court of...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Asha Bhathi

Legal References

Reported In
(1913)15BOMLR998

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 206-magistrate-committal of case-connection with another case no ground for committal.;a magistrate of the first class drew up, in a case of theft, a charge against the accused, but instead of pursuing the trial himself, committed the accused for trial to the court of session on the ground that the case was connected with another case in which he felt bound by law to commit :-;setting aside the order of commitment, that the connection between the two cases was not of such a character as to embarrass or prejudice the accused if the course prescribed by the criminal procedure code had been followed. - - we think that the reason, which the learned magistrate gave for committing is not good in law or in fact, and that under section 254 of the criminal procedure code it was the magistrate's duty to frame in writing a charge against the accused and then to proceed as described in sections 256 and the following.1. this is a reference by the learned sessions judge of ahmedabad in connection with certain proceedings upon the record of the first class magistrate of kaira, mr. dosabhai dhunjibhai billiraoria. before that learned magistrate, one asha bhathi and three others were charged with theft under section 379 of the indian penal code. the magistrate drew up a charge against the three accused, but instead of trying them upon that charge himself, he has committed them for trial to the court of session on the ground that the cases are connected with another case in which he felt bound by law to commit. it appears, however, that the connection between these two cases is not of such a character as to embarrass or prejudice the accused if the course prescribed by the criminal procedure code is followed. we think that the reason, which the learned magistrate gave for committing is not good in law or in fact, and that under section 254 of the criminal procedure code it was the magistrate's duty to frame in writing a charge against the accused and then to proceed as described in sections 256 and the following.2. we must, therefore, quash this commitment and direct the magistrate to conclude the trial himself. in so doing we take occasion to observe that it is for many reasons undesirable in practice that our already over-burdened courts of session should be still further burdened with the weight of cases committed to them by magistrates where such magistrates are themselves competent to decide the cases and no overriding reasons exist for committal to the higher court.

Full Judgment

1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in connection with certain proceedings upon the record of the First Class Magistrate of Kaira, Mr. Dosabhai Dhunjibhai Billiraoria. Before that learned Magistrate, one Asha Bhathi and three others were charged with theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate drew up a charge against the three accused, but instead of trying them upon that charge himself, he has committed them for trial to the Court of Session on the ground that the cases are connected with another case in which he felt bound by law to commit. It appears, however, that the connection between these two cases is not of such a character as to embarrass or prejudice the accused if the course prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code is followed. We think that the reason, which the learned Magistrate gave for committing is not good in law or in fact, and that under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code it was the Magistrate's duty to frame in writing a charge against the accused and then to proceed as described in Sections 256 and the following.

2. We must, therefore, quash this commitment and direct the Magistrate to conclude the trial himself. In so doing we take occasion to observe that it is for many reasons undesirable in practice that our already over-burdened Courts of Session should be still further burdened with the weight of cases committed to them by Magistrates where such Magistrates are themselves competent to decide the cases and no overriding reasons exist for committal to the higher Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial