Emperor Vs. Kale

Emperor vs Kale

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 13, 1922

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/451534

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/451534
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Stuart, J.
Decided On: Sep 13, 1922
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 369 - Review--Revision--Order passed by one Judge, whether can be revised by another Judge. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Kale

Legal References

Reported In: (1923)ILR45All143; 74Ind.Cas.270

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 369 - review--revision--order passed by one judge, whether can be revised by another judge. - stuart, j.1. this is an application from the sessions judge of meerut requesting me to set aside a conviction passed by his predecessor and affirmed by piggott, j., in appeal, on the ground that on certain materials that have since come to the knowledge of the district magistrate there is a doubt of the convict's guilt.2. this is not a matter which i can possibly take up in revision. even if i myself had passed the order dismissing the appeal i could not revise it and i certainly cannot revise the order of another judge of this court. there can be no revision in the matter.3. i return the record to the district magistrate in order that he may refer the matter to the local government who, have power under chapter xxix of the code of criminal procedure.

Full Judgment

Stuart, J.

1. This is an application from the Sessions Judge of Meerut requesting me to set aside a conviction passed by his predecessor and affirmed by Piggott, J., in appeal, on the ground that on certain materials that have since come to the knowledge of the District Magistrate there is a doubt of the convict's guilt.

2. This is not a matter which I can possibly take up in revision. Even if I myself had passed the order dismissing the appeal I could not revise it and I certainly cannot revise the order of another Judge of this Court. There can be no revision in the matter.

3. I return the record to the District Magistrate in order that he may refer the matter to the Local Government who, have power under Chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Same Parties Emperor vs Kale Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Stuart, J.

Criminal