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
3 paragraphs · 170 wordsMacpherson and Banerjee, JJ.—We do not think that Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorizes the District Magistrate to refer to this Court a case in which the Sessions Court has, u/s 123, refused to confirm his order u/s 118, and has discharged the person called upon to furnish security. Section 123 makes the order of the Magistrate, in a case like this, subject to confirmation or reversal by the Sessions Court, and it would be contrary to every principle to allow the District Magistrate to report against an order of the Sessions Court to which he is subordinate.
If the Magistrate, as the officer responsible for the peace of his District, is dissatisfied with any such order, his proper course, we need hardly point out, is to ask the Public Prosecutor to move this Court for the revision of the same.
We decline to take any action upon this reference, and direct that the case be returned to the Magistrate with a copy of this order.