Dasa Naika Vs. Ramjee Naika

Dasa Naika vs Ramjee Naika

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Aug 10, 1954

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/370938

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/370938
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Balkrishnaiya, J.
Decided On: Aug 10, 1954
Case Number: Criminal Revn. Petn. No. 110 of 1954
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947. [C.A. No. 14/1947]. Section 33-C (2): [Subhash B. ADI, J] Application under Removal of workman from service- Award for reinstatement in service with 85% of back wages and consequential benefits Challenge to award Modification of back wages from 85% to 50% - Claim of the workman for ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 517, 518, 519 and 520

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dasa Naika

Advocate G.S. Ullal, Adv.

Respondent

Ramjee Naika

Advocate B.S. Puttasiddiah, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 517, 518, 519 and 520
Reported In: AIR1955Kant32; AIR1955Mys32; 1955CriLJ391; ILR1954KAR370; (1956)34MysLJ152

Excerpt

- industrial disputes act, 1947. [c.a. no. 14/1947]. section 33-c (2): [subhash b. adi, j] application under removal of workman from service- award for reinstatement in service with 85% of back wages and consequential benefits challenge to award modification of back wages from 85% to 50% - claim of the workman for shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance etc., - held, the uniform is given to the employee to use the same while he is on duty. uniform is not given for regular or casual wear of the employee. if the employee is not admittedly on duty or was not worked during the said period, he cannot claim the uniform allowance just because that he has been directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits with continuity of service. continuity of service does not mean that, a person who has not worked and who was not wearing the uniform, is still entitled for uniform allowance for the said period. similarly, when uniform allowance cannot be granted, the granting of washing and stitching allowance does not arise. further, as per the rules and regulations of the corporation, the employee is entitled for the reimbursement of the medical bill. reimbursement of the medical bill presupposes that, the employee has suffered illness and for which he has spent money. what is awarded is so far as medical allowance is concerned, is in terms of the agreement. tribunal has not committed any error in granting the medical allowance. in respect of shoe allowance, uniform allowance, stitching allowance, washing allowance, the award is modified. .....appellate or revisional jurisdiction such as a court of session or a district magistrate, may in regard to orders passed under sections 517, 518 or 519, criminal p. c. by a subordinate court, revise such orders by virtue of the provisions of section 520 of the code, although there are no proceedings by way of appeal or revision from the main decision itself. -- 'u po hla v. ko po shein', air 1929 rang 97 (b) is referred to therein with approval.the rangoon high court while holding that an order of the trial court passed under section 617, criminal p. c. may be interfered with by the sessions judge or the district magistrate in their revisional jurisdiction even when there is an acquittal by the trial court, further lays down that in a case of conviction by a first class magistrate the district magistrate has in the absence of an appeal to the sessions court powers to interfere with an order passed under section 517 of the code.4. it is clear that the legislature intended in the case of section 520, as in some other section, to confer concurrent jurisdiction on the district magistrate and the court of session. when once the applicant elects one or the other forum, the remedy is exhausted. but it appears to me on general principles, that where an appeal has been preferred to a particular court from the main order of conviction or acquittal no appeal or revision against an order as to the disposal of property can be preferred to the other court under section 520, cr. p. c. the jurisdiction of the other court, as to the revision of the order, ceases owing to the seisin of the entire case by the court of appeal (vide -- 'emperor v. hussain shah', 1 cri lj 764 (nag) (c) ).5. in this case, however, there is little doubtthat the trial magistrate at chitaldroog is exercising first class powers and, as has been frankly admitted, an appeal has since been filed before the sessions judge against the order of conviction. i therefore set aside the order of thedistrict.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This petition is filed by the complainant in C. C. No. 976 of 53 on the file of the Second Magistrate, Chitaldroog against the order of the District Magistrate, Chitaldroog in Criminal B. P. No. 6/54 on his file directing the disposal of property under Section 520, Criminal P. C.

2. The revision petition before the District Magistrate has been preferred by the respondent, P. W. 12 in the trial court, against the order of the Second Magistrate, Chitaldroog, directing that the property, the subject-matter of the criminal case viz., Rs. 1000/- be delivered to the complainant.

3. During the course of arguments in this Court Mr. B.S. Puttasiddiah learned counsel for the respondent disclosed that an appeal has since been filed by the accused, before the Sessions Judge, against the judgment of conviction. The disposal of property being an integral portion of the judgment is finally subject to the order in appeal. Where no appeal is filed, it is clear that both the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have concurrent jurisdiction under S. 520, Cr. P. C.

In a decision of this Court reported in 16 Mys LJ 73 (A), it has been laid down that a Court which ordinarily exercises appellate or revisional jurisdiction such as a Court of Session or a District Magistrate, may in regard to orders passed under Sections 517, 518 or 519, Criminal P. C. by a Subordinate Court, revise such orders by virtue of the provisions of Section 520 of the Code, although there are no proceedings by way of appeal or revision from the main decision itself. -- 'U Po Hla V. Ko Po Shein', AIR 1929 Rang 97 (B) is referred to therein with approval.

The Rangoon High Court while holding that an order of the trial court passed under Section 617, Criminal P. C. may be interfered with by the Sessions Judge or the District Magistrate in their revisional Jurisdiction even when there is an acquittal by the trial court, further lays down that in a case of conviction by a First Class Magistrate the District Magistrate has in the absence of an appeal to the Sessions Court powers to interfere with an order passed under Section 517 of the Code.

4. It is clear that the legislature intended in the case of Section 520, as in some other section, to confer concurrent jurisdiction on the District Magistrate and the Court of Session. When once the applicant elects one or the other forum, the remedy is exhausted. But it appears to me on general principles, that where an appeal has been preferred to a particular court from the main order of conviction or acquittal no appeal or revision against an order as to the disposal of property can be preferred to the other court under Section 520, Cr. P. C. The jurisdiction of the other Court, as to the revision of the order, ceases owing to the seisin of the entire case by the Court of Appeal (Vide -- 'Emperor v. Hussain Shah', 1 Cri LJ 764 (Nag) (C) ).

5. In this case, however, there is little doubtthat the trial Magistrate at Chitaldroog is exercising first class powers and, as has been frankly admitted, an appeal has since been filed before the Sessions Judge against the order of conviction. I therefore set aside the order of theDistrict Magistrate and direct that the petitionfiled by P. W. 12 may be transferred to theCourt of the District and Sessions Judge, Shimogafor consideration and disposal along with themain case pending in appeal before him.

6. Order set aside.

Same Parties Dasa Naika vs Ramjee Naika Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Balkrishnaiya, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 517, 518,...

Criminal