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.

Arjun Vs. Kessingh and ors.

Arjun vs Kessingh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 06, 1956
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/756829
CiteSignal

Log in to get a daily email when new judgments cite this order.

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Ref. No. 64 of 1956
Subject
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arjun

Respondent

Kessingh and ors.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 107 and 249
Reported In
AIR1957Raj352; 1957CriLJ1316
Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes — an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed — then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - it has been recommended by the..........from the judgment of the learned sessions judge that even the counsel for the opposite party had conceded that section 249 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and in my opinion, he had rightly conceded. now apart from section 249 cr. p. c., i do not find any provision in the code under which proceedings under section 107 can be stopped. when an order under section 112 has been read or explained under section 113 to a person present in court or when any person appears or is brought before a magistrate in compliance with or in execution of a summons or warrant issued under section 114, the magistrate is bound to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken. in this case although a number of witnesses were cited by the police yet none of them was examined. a magistrate can very well discharge the person against whom an order is made under section 112 cr. p. c., if upon an inquiry under section 117 it is not proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace ......... that the person in respect of whom an inquiry is made should execute a bond. but for this an inquiry under section 117 is necessary. in the present case no inquiry has been.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sharma, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu in a case under Section 107 Cr. P. C. It has been recommended by the learned sessions judge that the order of the S. D. M. Nawalgarh dated 30-6-56 stopping the proceedings of the case under Section 249 Cr. P. C. and releasing the non-applicants Kessingh, Bhagtawarsingh, Madansingh and Chatarsingh be set aside.

2. parties have not appeared. I have gone through the record of the case and have also perused the judgments of both the lower courts as well as the explanation of the learned Magistrate. I do not think that under the circumstances of this case, learned S. D. M. was entitled to stop the proceedings in this case under Section 249 Cr. P. C. Section 249 applies to a summons case which terminates, either in acquittal or conviction of the accused. This is quite apparent from the phraseology of the said section which runs as follows :

'Section 249 -- In my case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Presidency Magistrate, a Magistrate of the first class, or with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate, any other Magistrate, may for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment either of acquittal or conviction, and may thereupon release the accused'.

The words 'either of acquittal or conviction' are significant. In a proceeding under Section 107 there can be no conviction or acquittal. Either the persons against whom those proceedings are taken may be discharged or may be bound down. Of course, Section 117 lays down that an enquiry in a case in which the order requires security for keeping the peace shall be made as early as practicable in the manner prescribed for conducting trials and recording evidence in summons cases. But that does not mean that an inquiry in a case under Section 107 is a trial of a summons case in which ultimately there is either an acquittal or a conviction.

I understand from the judgment of the learned sessions judge that even the counsel for the opposite party had conceded that Section 249 is not applicable to the facts of the present case and in my opinion, he had rightly conceded. Now apart from Section 249 Cr. P. C., I do not find any provision in the code under which proceedings under Section 107 can be stopped. When an order under Section 112 has been read or explained under Section 113 to a person present in court or when any person appears or is brought before a magistrate in compliance with or in execution of a summons or warrant issued under Section 114, the magistrate is bound to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken.

In this case although a number of witnesses were cited by the police yet none of them was examined. A magistrate can very well discharge the person against whom an order is made under Section 112 Cr. P. C., if upon an inquiry under Section 117 it is not proved that it is necessary for keeping the peace ......... that the person in respect of whom an inquiry is made should execute a bond. But for this an inquiry under Section 117 is necessary. In the present case no inquiry has been made under Section 118 end, therefore, the learned Magistrate could not discharge the opposite party.

3. The reference is accepted, the order of the learned S. D. M. Nawalgarh dated 30-6-54 stopping the proceedings against the opposite party under Section 249 Cr. P. C. is set aside, and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate for further proceedings in accordance with law and the observations made above.

4. This order of mine will not preclude theMagistrate from taking proceeding against theapplicant Arjun also under Section 107 if he thinks thatsuch proceedings are necessary in order to prevent the breach of peace.


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial