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.

The Empress Vs. Tsit Ooe

The Empress vs Tsit Ooe

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 11, 1878
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/865554

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 - special Court at Rangoon--Case Transferred--Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 64--Burma Courts Act (XVIII of 1875), Section 35. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Empress

Respondent

Tsit Ooe

Legal References

Reported In
(1879)ILR4Cal668

Excerpt

jurisdiction - special court at rangoon--case transferred--criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), section 64--burma courts act (xviii of 1875), section 35. - richard garth, c.j.1. after fully considering the judgments of the special court upon this point, we have no doubt that the conviction and sentence passed by the judicial commissioner is subject to appeal to that court.2. we entirely agree with the learned recorder, that the words 'any original jurisdiction' must hear the ordinary natural signification which he puts upon them, and we think it clear that whenever the judicial commissioner exercises original jurisdiction, from whatever source derived, in criminal cases, an appeal lies to the special court from his decision.3. were the law otherwise, we consider that the fair administration of criminal justice might be seriously imperilled, and that the case would call for the immediate interference of the legislature. the judicial commissioner would then have the power, by transferring any case to his own court, for any reason which might seem sufficient to himself, to exercise an entire control over the proceedings, and to deprive the prisoner of his right of appeal, however unjust or erroneous his decision might be.4. in fact, we find in this very case a forcible illustration of the danger of such a state of things, because, upon looking at the sections under which the judicial commissioner assumed a jurisdiction to try the prisoner, we entertain grave doubts whether he had any power to do so; and unless his jurisdiction could be inquired into by a court of appeal, it is by no means clear that the law has provided any other mode of raising the question.5. we are of opinion, therefore, that, upon the point referred to us, an appeal does lie from the judicial commissioner to the special court.

Full Judgment

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. After fully considering the judgments of the Special Court upon this point, we have no doubt that the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Commissioner is subject to appeal to that Court.

2. We entirely agree with the learned Recorder, that the words 'any original jurisdiction' must hear the ordinary natural signification which he puts upon them, and we think it clear that whenever the Judicial Commissioner exercises original jurisdiction, from whatever source derived, in criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Special Court from his decision.

3. Were the law otherwise, we consider that the fair administration of criminal justice might be seriously imperilled, and that the case would call for the immediate interference of the legislature. The Judicial Commissioner would then have the power, by transferring any case to his own Court, for any reason which might seem sufficient to himself, to exercise an entire control over the proceedings, and to deprive the prisoner of his right of appeal, however unjust or erroneous his decision might be.

4. In fact, we find in this very case a forcible illustration of the danger of such a state of things, because, upon looking at the sections under which the Judicial Commissioner assumed a jurisdiction to try the prisoner, we entertain grave doubts whether he had any power to do so; and unless his jurisdiction could be inquired into by a Court of Appeal, it is by no means clear that the law has provided any other mode of raising the question.

5. We are of opinion, therefore, that, upon the point referred to us, an appeal does lie from the Judicial Commissioner to the Special Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial