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. Nanji Samal

Emperor vs Nanji Samal

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Aug 28, 1913
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/337127

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. 61 of 1913
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 213-Magistrate-Committing a case-Reasons for committal-Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Section 83 (2).;A Magistrate duly empowered to try a case under Section 83 (2) of the Indian Registration Act, committed the case to the Court of Session without giving any reasons ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Nanji Samal

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1914Bom237; (1913)15BOMLR999

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 213-magistrate-committing a case-reasons for committal-registration act (xvi of 1908), section 83 (2).;a magistrate duly empowered to try a case under section 83 (2) of the indian registration act, committed the case to the court of session without giving any reasons :-;that as the case was triable either by the magistrate himself or by the court of session, the magistrate was bound to record not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but also reasons for sending him to the court of session ; and that the failure to do so amounted to an illegality. - - there has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law.heaton, j.1. in this case the magistrate, as appears quite plainly from clause 2 of section 83 of the registration act, could have tried the case himself but he committed it to the court of session. he did not however give any reason why he should commit it rather than try it himself. the law requires that reasons for commitment shall be recorded (see s. 213 of the criminal procedure code). in a case of this kind where the trial may either be by the magistrate himself or by the court of session, i think that reasons for commitment must include not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but reasons for sending him before the court of session. there has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law. this no doubt would amount to no more than an irregularity if the case were one which plainly ought to be committed to the sessions. but where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregularity. it is, it seems to me, an illegality.2. for this reason i would quash the commitment and it follows the case will have to be disposed of by the magistrate who committed it.

Full Judgment

Heaton, J.

1. In this case the Magistrate, as appears quite plainly from Clause 2 of Section 83 of the Registration Act, could have tried the case himself but he committed it to the Court of Session. He did not however give any reason why he should commit it rather than try it himself. The law requires that reasons for commitment shall be recorded (see S. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code). In a case of this kind where the trial may either be by the Magistrate himself or by the Court of Session, I think that reasons for commitment must include not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but reasons for sending him before the Court of Session. There has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law. This no doubt would amount to no more than an irregularity if the case were one which plainly ought to be committed to the Sessions. But where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregularity. It is, it seems to me, an illegality.

2. For this reason I would quash the commitment and it follows the case will have to be disposed of by the Magistrate who committed it.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial