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.

Pitambar and anr. Vs. King-emperor

Pitambar and anr. vs King-emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 07, 1927
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/460607

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
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

- - On the other hand, he has come clearly to the conclusion that the promissory note, then, though originally bearing the thumb impression of the defendant, has been materially altered. It is possible that he did not study the provisions of the existing section, or, if he did, failed to observe the duty imposed u...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pitambar and anr.

Respondent

King-emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1927All567

Excerpt

- - on the other hand, he has come clearly to the conclusion that the promissory note, then, though originally bearing the thumb impression of the defendant, has been materially altered. it is possible that he did not study the provisions of the existing section, or, if he did, failed to observe the duty imposed upon him......recording a finding of two alternative offences, which were mutually inconsistent. what the section requires is that the court may after such preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary (and it is clear in this case that the district judge in hearing and deciding the appeal has made all the preliminary enquiry which he considered necessary), record a finding to the effect that an offence appears to have been committed and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by him as the presiding officer of the court and forward the same to a magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. the action taken by the district judge appears to have been based upon the practice, which existed under the old section. it is possible that he did not study the provisions of the existing section, or, if he did, failed to observe the duty imposed upon him. in order to comply with the section he must record a finding that an offence or offences have been committed and he must make a complaint in writing signed by him and setting out the particulars of each of such complaints which he intends to forward to the magistrate.2. it seems to me, therefore, that the proper course is to return the record to the district judge and to ask him to complete the matter in accordance with the provisions of the section. therefore, the stay order will continue until the matter is put rightly according to law.

Full Judgment

Walsh, J.

1. I have no materials before me in this appeal to enable me to differ from the finding of the Additional District Judge. The District Judge has come to a conclusion somewhat different from that of which the defendant himself took up in his defence. He appears to think that both parties have been misleading the Court as he is definitely of opinion that the thumb-impression is that of the defendant which the defendant denies. On the other hand, he has come clearly to the conclusion that the promissory note, then, though originally bearing the thumb impression of the defendant, has been materially altered. He does not appear to have made up his mind whether it is an entire fabrication or merely a subsequent alteration. Both those alternatives would amount to altering a forged document, but Mr. M(sic)shtaq Ahmad rightly points out on behalf of the appellant that the conclusion at which the learned Judge has arrived in his finding as to the existence of a prima facie complaint is in the alternative. I do not think that is sufficient to comply with the section. For example, you would not satisfy the section by recording a finding of two alternative offences, which were mutually inconsistent. What the section requires is that the Court may after such preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary (and it is clear in this case that the District Judge in hearing and deciding the appeal has made all the preliminary enquiry which he considered necessary), record a finding to the effect that an offence appears to have been committed and make a complaint thereof in writing signed by him as the presiding officer of the Court and forward the same to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. The action taken by the District Judge appears to have been based upon the practice, which existed under the old section. It is possible that he did not study the provisions of the existing section, or, if he did, failed to observe the duty imposed upon him. In order to comply with the section he must record a finding that an offence or offences have been committed and he must make a complaint in writing signed by him and setting out the particulars of each of such complaints which he intends to forward to the Magistrate.

2. It seems to me, therefore, that the proper course is to return the record to the District Judge and to ask him to complete the matter in accordance with the provisions of the section. Therefore, the stay order will continue until the matter is put rightly according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial