CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Nitya Pal and others vs Beni Madhab Ghose

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 6 February 1905 · Citation: (1905) 02 CAL CK 0007

RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Rev. No 1280 of 1904
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 121 words

Maclean, C.J.—In my opinion behaving regard to the language of sec. 421, C.Cr.P., it is not necessary, where an appeal is summarily dismissed under that section, for the Magistrate to give any reason for his decision. It must be taken, if he does dismiss an appeal summarily, that he considered there were no sufficient grounds for interfering. I entirely agree with the decision in the case of Rash Behari Das v. Bal Gopal Singh (1). The language of sec. 421 seems to he absolutely clear.

2.

I have, however, read the judgment in this case and I do not think that any injustice has been done. This is not a case for revision. The rule is discharged.

Holmwood, J.

I agree.