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.

Moti Ram Vs. Emperor

Moti Ram vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 28, 1924
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/466251

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - The prosecution failed.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Moti Ram

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925All410; 85Ind.Cas.710

Excerpt

- - the prosecution failed.mukerji, j.1. two points have been, urged in this application for revision.2. it appears that the applicant prosecuted' somebody on a charge under section 498 of the indian panel code. the prosecution failed. it was before a bench of honorary magistrates. the learned district magistrate to whom an appeal would, ordinarily lie from the orders of the court of the bench of honorary magistrates, took up the matter under section 476-a, of the criminal procedure code and ordered the prosecution of the applicant under section 193 of the indian penal code. the applicant went to the learned sessions judge in appeal and his appeal, has been dismissed.3. it is urged that the learned district-magistrate had no jurisdiction to take up the matter as the original complaint was not heard by him. the point, however, cannot be maintained in view of the new, law, viz., 476-a of the criminal procedure code.4. the second point is that as a matter of fact no oath was administered to the applicant. assuming that such was the ease the applicant was bound to state the truth before a court of justice.5. i reject the application.

Full Judgment

Mukerji, J.

1. Two points have been, urged in this application for revision.

2. It appears that the applicant prosecuted' somebody on a charge under Section 498 of the Indian Panel Code. The prosecution failed. It was before a Bench of Honorary Magistrates. The learned District Magistrate to whom an appeal would, ordinarily lie from the orders of the Court of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, took up the matter under Section 476-A, of the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered the prosecution of the applicant under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant went to the learned Sessions Judge in appeal and his appeal, has been dismissed.

3. It is urged that the learned District-Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take up the matter as the original complaint was not heard by him. The point, however, cannot be maintained in view of the new, law, viz., 476-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The second point is that as a matter of fact no oath was administered to the applicant. Assuming that such was the ease the applicant was bound to state the truth before a Court of justice.

5. I reject the application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial