CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts(1922) 01 MAD CK 0016

Jogi Venkiah and Others vs Station House Officer of Narasapur and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 5 January 1922 · Citation: AIR 1922 Mad 78 : 67 Ind. Cas. 339 : (1922) 15 LW 534 : (1922) 42 MLJ 401

Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

16 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

In this case the Stationary Sub Magistrate of Narasapur, in acquitting a person charged with an offence u/s 406, made an order u/s 517,

Criminal Procedure Code, that certain jewels which were the subject-matter of the charge should be returned to the complainant. An appeal

against this order was preferred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhimavaram. He dismissed it on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to hear

the appeal because the case ended in acquittal.

2.The jurisdiction of the court to vary an order u/s 517 is conferred by Section 520 which speaks of ''any court of Appeal, confirmation, reference

or revision ''. The meaning of these words has been differently interpreted by this Court and by the Bombay High Court. The latter has held in In re

Khema Rukhad I.L.R(1918) . 42 Bom. 664 that the words ""Court of Appeal"" mean the Court to which an appeal lies in the particular case. This

Court has held in Queen Empress v. Ahmed I.L.R(1886) Mad. 448 that they mean the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the court which

passed the order u/s 517. It is on this latter ruling that petitioner depends in arguing his case before us, but, unfortunately it is of no use to him

because, in two subsequent cases, different Benches of this Court have held that the words ""Court to which appeals ordinarily lie"" cannot cover the

case of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate whose power to hear appeals depends on a delegation by the District Magistrate u/s 407 clause (2).

Whatever view we might be inclined to take on this latter point, we do not feel justified in refusing to follow the two cases quotted to us, which are

Criminal Revision Cases 525 of 1905 and 84 of 1908.

We must therefore hold that the court which had power to modify the Stationary Sub-Magistrate''s Order in this case was the District Magistrate

and not the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate''s order dismissing the appeal was right. The Criminal Revision

Petition is dismissed.