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
2 paragraphs · 198 wordsPhillips, J.—The ruling in Mahomed Abdul Mention v. Panduranga Row 28 M.P 255 : 2 Weir 247 : 2 Cri. L.J. 752, is in favour of petitioners'' contention that when a complaint has been dismissed u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure, no Magistrate can entertain the same complaint until the order of dismissal is set aside by a competent authority. This view was overruled in Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden 3 Cri. L.J. 274 : 29 M.P 126 : 1 M.L.T. 31 : 16 M.L.J. 79 so far as entertainment of a complaint a second time by the same Magistrate is concerned, and the principle on which the case in Emperor v. Chinna Kaliappa Gounden 3 Cri. L.J. 274 : 29 M.P 126 : 1 M.L.T. 31 : 16 M.L.J. 79, was decided is applicable also to a case taken up a second time by a different Magistrate. It is clearly explained by Sir Francis W. Maclean, C.J., in Queen-Empress v. Dolegobind Das 28 C.P 211 : 5 C.W.N. 169 and I entirely agree with the reasoning.
In this case, therefore, I hold that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismiss this petition.