Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

In Re: Bheema

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 26, 1906
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/777830

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Bheema

Legal References

Reported In
(1906)16MLJ525

Excerpt

- order1. there is no appeal by the 2nd accused, but we observe that the sessions judge is wrong in stating that that accused was not liable by him on a charge of theft in a building.2. that offence, it is true, is not triable exclusively by a court of session, but there is nothing to prevent a sessions court from trying a person accused of such an offence and duly committed to it for trial.3. in this case the committal was duly made by a competent magistrate, and such committal can be set aside only by the high court under section 215 of the criminal procedure code. the sessions judge had no power to set it aside and direct the magistrate to try the case himself.4. we, therefore, set aside the order of the sessions judge in regard to the 2nd accused bheema, and we set aside all proceedings taken in pursuance of that order and direct the sessions judge to restore the case to his file, as against this accused and to deal with it according to law.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. There is no appeal by the 2nd accused, but we observe that the Sessions Judge is wrong in stating that that accused was not liable by him on a charge of theft in a building.

2. That offence, it is true, is not triable exclusively by a Court of Session, but there is nothing to prevent a Sessions Court from trying a person accused of such an offence and duly committed to it for trial.

3. In this case the committal was duly made by a competent Magistrate, and such committal can be set aside only by the High Court under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Sessions Judge had no power to set it aside and direct the Magistrate to try the case himself.

4. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge in regard to the 2nd accused Bheema, and we set aside all proceedings taken in pursuance of that order and direct the Sessions Judge to restore the case to his file, as against this accused and to deal with it according to law.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Bheema vs Same Subject Criminal
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales