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.

Emperor Vs. Sundar

Emperor vs Sundar

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 09, 1932
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/475378

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 109, 119, 439 - Order of discharge under Section 119--Reference to High Court to set aside order--Mere conflit of opinion on value of evedence--Interference--whether justifiable. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Sundar

Legal References

Cases Referred
Emperor v. Ram Lal
Reported In
146Ind.Cas.831

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 109, 119, 439 - order of discharge under section 119--reference to high court to set aside order--mere conflit of opinion on value of evedence--interference--whether justifiable. - bennet, j.1. this is a reference by the learned district magistrate of aligarh recommending that this court should set aside an order of a magistrate passed under section 119, criminal procedure code, discharging an accused person who had been ordered to show cause why security should not be taken from him under section 109, criminal procedure code. the law on the subject is laid down in emperor v. ram lal : air1929 all273 , where a bench of the court held that such a case could come before this court on its revisional side, but that this court would not go into the merits of the case unless there was something to show that there has been a material departure from the legal principles according to which the case ought to have been dealt with, or if it is asked to go into the facts it will only do so if something is shown which particularly indicates that it is desirable to enter into those facts. in the present case some prosecution witnesses told a story to the effect that the accused was phased at night and that he hid behind a wall and that he had an instrument of burglary with him. the trying magistrate did not believe those statements. the district magistrate states that he does believe them. this is a mere conflict of opinion on the value of evidence and it is not a matter which comes within the principle laid down by the ruling quoted. it is not shown that there has been any departure from legal principles or that there is any special reason why this court should enter into the facts. accordingly i refuse this reference and direct that the papers be returned to the district magistrate.

Full Judgment

Bennet, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Aligarh recommending that this Court should set aside an order of a Magistrate passed under Section 119, Criminal Procedure Code, discharging an accused person who had been ordered to show cause why security should not be taken from him under Section 109, Criminal Procedure Code. The law on the subject is laid down in Emperor v. Ram Lal : AIR1929 All273 , where a Bench of the court held that such a case could come before this Court on its revisional side, but that this Court would not go into the merits of the case unless there was something to show that there has been a material departure from the legal principles according to which the case ought to have been dealt with, or if it is asked to go into the facts it will only do so if something is shown which particularly indicates that it is desirable to enter into those facts. In the present case some prosecution witnesses told a story to the effect that the accused was phased at night and that he hid behind a wall and that he had an instrument of burglary with him. The trying Magistrate did not believe those statements. The District Magistrate states that he does believe them. This is a mere conflict of opinion on the value of evidence and it is not a matter which comes within the principle laid down by the ruling quoted. It is not shown that there has been any departure from legal principles or that there is any special reason why this Court should enter into the facts. Accordingly I refuse this reference and direct that the papers be returned to the District Magistrate.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial