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.

Jamil-ul-rehman Vs. State

Jamil-ul-rehman vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 05, 1973
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/686489

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
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision Appeal No. 431 of 1972
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal - jurisdiction - Sections 107, 112 and 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 107 does not warrant colorable use of statute - Magistrate not justified in assuming jurisdiction without recording reasons - Magistrate empowered to show cause any person to execute bond only on substance of information r...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 107

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jamil-ul-rehman

Advocate K.N. Chitkara and; H.R. Bhardwaj, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Reported In
1973RLR179

Excerpt

criminal - jurisdiction - sections 107, 112 and 438 of criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 107 does not warrant colorable use of statute - magistrate not justified in assuming jurisdiction without recording reasons - magistrate empowered to show cause any person to execute bond only on substance of information received by him - also he must make order in writing. - - lahori gate and i am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents named in the calendra u/s 107/150 criminal procedure code .issue summons along with notices u/s 112 cr. 3,000.00 along with one surety in (be like amount each to keep peace for a period of one year......petition under sections 436/438 of the code impugning the same. sections 107(1) and 112 of the code may be noticed together :- [after reproducing these, judgment proceeds : (2) section 107(1) of the code does not warrant a colourable use of the statute. no magistrate would be justified in assuming jurisdiction by merely stating that there are sufficient grounds for intiating the proceedings. he has of necessity to record an order containing the grounds which may be the basis of his opinion. only a speaking order containing the grounds will be open to judicial scrutiny. without recording the grounds which may be determinable as sufficient grounds for initiating the proceeding the magistrate would not be disclosing jurisdiction in himself to proceed under sections 107/112 of the code. (3) section 112 in one part requiries that the magistrate shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received by him. it is on the statement of the substance of such information received by him that the magistrate is empowered to call upon any person to show-cause why he should not be required to execute a bond in a particular amount for a particular term with a particular number of sureties of a particular class and character. (4) in this case i find a complete disregard was shown to the provisions of sections 107/ 112 of the code. accepting the petition, the proceedings taken by the trial court are hereby set aside.

Full Judgment

P.S. Safeer, J.

(1) This petition has came up on in consequence of a report submitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in exercise of his jurisdiction provided by section 438 the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter called the 'Code'. His order has been read out to me. I have seen the original record. I find a report was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, Delhi under the date 13th June, 1972. The first order on the record bears the date 18th August, 1972 and is in the following terms :-

'I have gone through the calendra u/s 107/ 105 Criminal Procedure Code . received from PS. Lahori Gate and I am satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondents named in the calendra u/s 107/150 Criminal Procedure Code . Issue summons Along with notices u/s 112 Cr. P.C. to the respondents requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be bound down in the sum of Rs. 3,000.00 Along with one surety in (be like amount each to keep peace for a period of one year. To come up on 28-8-1972'.

Areference to the record shows that inspire of the order passed on the 18th of August, 1972 in respect of police report bearing the date 13th June, 1972 no notices were issued till the 8th of September, 1972. On that date notices were issued to Aziz-ul-Rehman, Jamil-ul-Rehman and Akhlau-ul-Rehman. After being served with the notices the petitioners filed the petition under sections 436/438 of the Code impugning the same. Sections 107(1) and 112 of the Code may be noticed together :- [After reproducing these, Judgment proceeds :

(2) Section 107(1) of the Code does not warrant a colourable use of the statute. No Magistrate would be justified in assuming jurisdiction by merely stating that there are sufficient grounds for intiating the proceedings. He has of necessity to record an order containing the grounds which may be the basis of his opinion. Only a speaking order containing the grounds will be open to judicial scrutiny. Without recording the grounds which may be determinable as sufficient grounds for initiating the proceeding the Magistrate would not be disclosing jurisdiction in himself to proceed under Sections 107/112 of the Code.

(3) Section 112 in one part requiries that the Magistrate shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received by him. It is on the statement of the substance of such information received by him that the Magistrate is empowered to call upon any person to show-cause why he should not be required to execute a bond in a particular amount for a particular term with a particular number of sureties of a particular class and character.

(4) In this case I find a complete disregard was shown to the provisions of sections 107/ 112 of the Code. Accepting the petition, the proceedings taken by the trial court are hereby set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial