Bajai Vs. Ram Sarup and ors.

Bajai vs Ram Sarup and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 26, 1927

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/470048

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/470048
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Apr 26, 1927
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

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

- - Emperor .In the present case it was never urged that the omission to read over the evidence to the witnesses did in fact occasion a failure of justice.

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bajai

Respondent

Ram Sarup and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1927All757

Excerpt

- - emperor .in the present case it was never urged that the omission to read over the evidence to the witnesses did in fact occasion a failure of justice......offence of which they had been convicted. the learned district magistrate passed his order upon an application for revision made by the opposite party. the ground for revision was that the depositions had not been read over to the witnesses as required by the provisions of the criminal procedure code. the learned district magistrate relied upon the fact that i had passed similar orders on the same ground. my orders were based on the rulings reported as hira lal ghosh v. emperor dargahi v. emperor . i felt that i was bound in law to follow these rulings, because they appeared in the indian law reports and were not contradicted by any rulings of the high court at allahabad. if there had been no authority i should have held that an irregularity of procedure such as this could be cured by the provisions of section 537, criminal p.c. the code makes no distinction between illegalities and irregularities. it regards all mistakes in procedure as irregularities and divides them into irregularities which vitiate proceedings and irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings.2. if a magistrate who acts absolutely without jurisdiction does not commit an irregularity, i do not suppose that any mistake in procedure can be regarded as being so serious that it is not an irregularity but an illegality. the matter has now been set at rest by the decision of their lordships of the privy council in abdul rahman v. emperor . in the present case it was never urged that the omission to read over the evidence to the witnesses did in fact occasion a failure of justice. i, therefore, report the case to the hon'ble high court with the recommendation that the order of the district magistrate should be set aside and that the convictions and sentences should be restored. i have ascertained that the retrial has not proceeded pending the decision of this court on the application for revision.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Lindsay, J.

1. This is an application for the revision of an order passed by the District Magistrate directing that the opposite party should be retried for an offence of which they had been convicted. The learned District Magistrate passed his order upon an application for revision made by the opposite party. The ground for revision was that the depositions had not been read over to the witnesses as required by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned District Magistrate relied upon the fact that I had passed similar orders on the same ground. My orders were based on the rulings reported as Hira Lal Ghosh v. Emperor Dargahi v. Emperor . I felt that I was bound in law to follow these rulings, because they appeared in the Indian Law Reports and were not contradicted by any rulings of the High Court at Allahabad. If there had been no authority I should have held that an irregularity of procedure such as this could be cured by the provisions of Section 537, Criminal P.C. The Code makes no distinction between illegalities and irregularities. It regards all mistakes in procedure as irregularities and divides them into irregularities which vitiate proceedings and irregularities which do not vitiate proceedings.

2. If a Magistrate who acts absolutely without jurisdiction does not commit an irregularity, I do not suppose that any mistake in procedure can be regarded as being so serious that it is not an irregularity but an illegality. The matter has now been set at rest by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Abdul Rahman v. Emperor . In the present case it was never urged that the omission to read over the evidence to the witnesses did in fact occasion a failure of justice. I, therefore, report the case to the Hon'ble High Court with the recommendation that the order of the District Magistrate should be set aside and that the convictions and sentences should be restored. I have ascertained that the retrial has not proceeded pending the decision of this Court on the application for revision.

Same Parties Bajai vs Ram Sarup and ors. Same Subject Civil

Civil