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.

Empress Vs. Paramananda and ors.

Empress vs Paramananda and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 04, 1883
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/865329

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Jurisdiction - Officer invested with special powers--Sections 30, 34 and 209, Code of Criminal Procedure (Act X of 1882). -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Empress

Respondent

Paramananda and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1884)ILR10Cal85

Excerpt

jurisdiction - officer invested with special powers--sections 30, 34 and 209, code of criminal procedure (act x of 1882). - prinsep and o'kinealy, jj.1. the prisoner has been convicted under section 304 of the code of criminal procedure by an officer invested with the special powers described in sections 30 and 34, of the code of criminal procedure.2. the sessions judge, to whom the sentence has been submitted for confirmation, has referred the case to this court, as a court of revision, to have these proceedings set aside, and the deputy commissioner directed to commit the case for trial in this court.3. section 209 empowers a magistrate holding an enquiry to try the case himself if he thinks that only an offence within his jurisdiction has been committed. this is the course which we understand the deputy commissioner has taken, and we cannot, therefore, hold that it is not authorised by law, or that he has acted without jurisdiction merely because there is some evidence which, if believed, would substantiate the charge of murder an offence beyond his jurisdiction. at the same time we think that this course should be very rarely, if ever, taken by any officer invested with special, powers under sections 30and 34, of the code of criminal procedure, and that in adopting it, any such officerincurs a very grave responsibility. looking to the evidence on the record, especially the medical evidence, we are not inclined to doubt the correctness of the finding of the deputy commissioner, and, therefore, we are unable to set aside the proceedings. the sessions judge will, therefore, proceed according to law.

Full Judgment

Prinsep and O'Kinealy, JJ.

1. The prisoner has been convicted under Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an officer invested with the special powers described in Sections 30 and 34, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The Sessions Judge, to whom the sentence has been submitted for confirmation, has referred the case to this Court, as a Court of Revision, to have these proceedings set aside, and the Deputy Commissioner directed to commit the case for trial in this Court.

3. Section 209 empowers a Magistrate holding an enquiry to try the case himself if he thinks that only an offence within his jurisdiction has been committed. This is the course which we understand the Deputy Commissioner has taken, and we cannot, therefore, hold that it is not authorised by law, or that he has acted without jurisdiction merely because there is some evidence which, if believed, would substantiate the charge of murder an offence beyond his jurisdiction. At the same time we think that this course should be very rarely, if ever, taken by any officer invested with special, powers under Sections 30and 34, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that in adopting it, any such officerincurs a very grave responsibility. Looking to the evidence on the record, especially the medical evidence, we are not inclined to doubt the correctness of the finding of the Deputy Commissioner, and, therefore, we are unable to set aside the proceedings. The Sessions Judge will, therefore, proceed according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial