Emperor Vs. Debi Ram and anr.

Emperor vs Debi Ram and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 31, 1924

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474675

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/474675
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Daniels, J.
Decided On: Mar 31, 1924
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 517 - Accused acquitted by Magistrate--Property restored to accused--Order by District Magistrate on revision directing restoration to complainant--Jurisdiction. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Debi Ram and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: (1924)ILR46All623

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, section 517 - accused acquitted by magistrate--property restored to accused--order by district magistrate on revision directing restoration to complainant--jurisdiction. - .....acquitted them and ordered the drum to be restored to them. the complainants applied in revision to the district magistrate urging that the accused had been wrongly acquitted and that they should be convicted and punished. the learned district magistrate declined to entertain the revision, but, holding that the order under section 517 of the code of criminal procedure was appealable and considering that the weight of evidence was in favour of the drum being the property of the complainants, he set aside the order of the trial court and directed the delivery of the drum to the complainants. the learned additional sessions judge has referred the case to this court, holding that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction. this is the second case in which' this learned judge has made a reference to this court without giving the magistrate an opportunity of submitting his explanation as required by the rules. it is, however, at this stage unnecessary to delay the case by sending it back. i agree with the learned additional sessions judge. an order under section 517 can be set aside by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision. the district magistrate was, however, in this case not a court of appeal because no appeal lay against the order of acquittal. this view has been taken under similar circumstances by the bombay high court in the case of in re khema rukhad (1918) i.l.r. 42 bom. 664. it was held in that case that where the accused had been acquitted, the sessions judge had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the trying magistrate restoring the cattle to the accused and to order their delivery to the complainant. the district magistrate was also not a court of confirmation, reference or revision, the only court which could pass orders on a reference or revision being the high court.2. i, therefore, set aside the order of the court below and restore that of the cantonment magistrate.

Full Judgment

Daniels, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Saharanpur under the following circumstances. Two persons Debi Ram and Bahrain were accused of the theft of a drum under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The trying Magistrate acquitted them and ordered the drum to be restored to them. The complainants applied in revision to the District Magistrate urging that the accused had been wrongly acquitted and that they should be convicted and punished. The learned District Magistrate declined to entertain the revision, but, holding that the order under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was appealable and considering that the weight of evidence was in favour of the drum being the property of the complainants, he set aside the order of the trial court and directed the delivery of the drum to the complainants. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court, holding that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction. This is the second case in which' this learned Judge has made a reference to this Court without giving the Magistrate an opportunity of submitting his explanation as required by the rules. It is, however, at this stage unnecessary to delay the case by sending it back. I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge. An order under Section 517 can be set aside by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision. The District Magistrate was, however, in this case not a court of appeal because no appeal lay against the order of acquittal. This view has been taken under similar circumstances by the Bombay High Court in the case of In re Khema Rukhad (1918) I.L.R. 42 Bom. 664. It was held in that case that where the accused had been acquitted, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the trying Magistrate restoring the cattle to the accused and to order their delivery to the complainant. The District Magistrate was also not a court of confirmation, reference or revision, the only court which could pass orders on a reference or revision being the High Court.

2. I, therefore, set aside the order of the court below and restore that of the Cantonment Magistrate.

Same Parties Emperor vs Debi Ram and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Daniels, J.

Criminal