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.

Muhammad Alam Vs. Emperor

Muhammad Alam vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 15, 1910
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/452710

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
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Bengal Regulation (VI of 1825), Section 2 - Imposition of fine--Magistrate or Collector--Jurisdiction. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Muhammad Alam

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
7Ind.Cas.389

Excerpt

bengal regulation (vi of 1825), section 2 - imposition of fine--magistrate or collector--jurisdiction. - chamier, j.1. this is a reference by. the sessions judge of farrukhabad, in which he recommends that an order of the joint magistrate of farrukhabad ordering one muhammad alam to pay a fine of rs. 50 under section 2 of bengal regulation vi of 1825, be set aside the case was taken up at the instance of the sub-divisional officer on whose report the district magistrate directed that muhammad alam should be prosecuted under the section of the regulation mentioned above the case was made over to the joint magistrate by the district magistrate, who was also, of course, the collector of, the district. according to section 2 of the, regulation, it is only the collector or other officer acting in that capacity that can impose a fine under that section. section 4 provides, for the levying of fine by the collector as if it were arrears of public revenue, and section 5 of the regulation gives a right of appeal to the board of revenue it seems to be quite clear that proceedings cannot be taken under the regulation by a magistrate as such. the joint magistrate was not a collector or other officer acting in that capacity within the meaning of the regulation, and, therefore, had no jurisdiction under that section. but as he dealt with the case as a magistrate, the sessions judge was entitled to deal with the case under section 435 of the code of criminal procedure, and this court has power to set aside the order of the joint magistrate. the order of the joint magistrate is, therefore, set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction. the fine if realized, will be refunded.

Full Judgment

Chamier, J.

1. This is a reference by. the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, in which he recommends that an order of the Joint Magistrate of Farrukhabad ordering one Muhammad Alam to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under Section 2 of Bengal Regulation VI of 1825, be set aside The case was taken up at the instance of the Sub-Divisional Officer on whose report the District Magistrate directed that Muhammad Alam should be prosecuted under the section of the Regulation mentioned above The case was made over to the Joint Magistrate by the District Magistrate, who was also, of course, the Collector of, the District. According to Section 2 of the, Regulation, it is only the Collector or other officer acting in that capacity that can impose a fine under that section. Section 4 provides, for the levying of fine by the Collector as if it were arrears of public revenue, and Section 5 of the Regulation gives a right of appeal to the Board of Revenue It seems to be quite clear that proceedings cannot be taken under the Regulation by a Magistrate as such. The Joint Magistrate was not a Collector or other officer acting in that capacity within the meaning of the Regulation, and, therefore, had no jurisdiction under that section. But as he dealt with the case as a Magistrate, the Sessions Judge was entitled to deal with the case under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and this Court has power to set aside the order of the Joint Magistrate. The order of the Joint Magistrate is, therefore, set aside as having been passed without jurisdiction. The fine if realized, will be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial