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.

In Re: Maruti Vithu

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Dec 08, 1924
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/347439

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. 86 of 1924
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code Act V of 1898), Section 435, 345 - District Magistrate- Galling for record from a Magistrate to transfer it to another-Compounding of offence-Former Magistrate cannot record composition and acquit accused.;Where a District Magistrate calls for the papers in a case, under Section 435 of the 0 ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Maruti Vithu

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925Bom247; (1925)27BOMLR350; 87Ind.Cas.596

Excerpt

criminal procedure code act v of 1898), section 435, 345 - district magistrate- galling for record from a magistrate to transfer it to another-compounding of offence-former magistrate cannot record composition and acquit accused.;where a district magistrate calls for the papers in a case, under section 435 of the 0 criminal procedure code, with a view to withdraw the case from one magistrate and refer it for trial to another, the jurisdiction of the former magistrate to deal with the case ceases after the order calling for the papers is made. such magistrate has, thereafter, no jurisdiction to record a composition of the offence and acquit the accused under section 345 of the code. - pratt, j.1. the complainant filed a complaint july 2, 1.924, against two accused of various compound able offences. on july 15, 1924, the district magistrate in revision called for the papers, under section 435 of the criminal procedure code, with a view to withdraw the case from the first class magistrate and refer it for trial to another magistrate. as a matter of fact he did so order on august 15. but in the meanwhile on july 31, the magistrate recorded a composition of the offence and acquitted the accused under section 345, criminal procedure code.2. the district magistrate refers the case to us on the ground that the jurisdiction of the first class magistrate mr. deshpande ceased after the order had been made calling for the papers. we think the contention of the district magistrate is correct. when the order was made calling for the record and proceedings with a view to withdrawing the case and transferring it to another magistrate the case was no longer on the file of the magistrate and his jurisdiction was suspended. we, therefore, think that the order of acquittal made on july 31 is void and of no effect.3. we, therefore, return the record and proceedings with a direction that the case should now proceed before the court of the sub-divisional magistrate at nasik to whom it was referred by the district magistrate. this is of course without prejudice to the rights of the parties to effect a fresh composition before that magistrate.

Full Judgment

Pratt, J.

1. The complainant filed a complaint July 2, 1.924, against two accused of various compound able offences. On July 15, 1924, the District Magistrate in revision called for the papers, under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with a view to withdraw the case from the First Class Magistrate and refer it for trial to another Magistrate. As a matter of fact he did so order on August 15. But in the meanwhile on July 31, the Magistrate recorded a composition of the offence and acquitted the accused under Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The District Magistrate refers the case to us on the ground that the jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate Mr. Deshpande ceased after the order had been made calling for the papers. We think the contention of the District Magistrate is correct. When the order was made calling for the record and proceedings with a view to withdrawing the case and transferring it to another Magistrate the case was no longer on the file of the Magistrate and his jurisdiction was suspended. We, therefore, think that the order of acquittal made on July 31 is void and of no effect.

3. We, therefore, return the record and proceedings with a direction that the case should now proceed before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Nasik to whom it was referred by the District Magistrate. This is of course without prejudice to the rights of the parties to effect a fresh composition before that Magistrate.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial