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
8 paragraphs · 181 wordsWe are clearly of opinion that the Court of the Assistant First-class Magistrate in charge of Calicut Division had jurisdiction u/s 476 of the
Criminal Procedure Code to direct the prosecution, though the Magistrate who made the order u/s 476 was not the same Magistrate who tried the
case. The power is given to the Court, not to the individual Magistrate. Nor does the fact that the complaint was rejected as not properly stamped
in any way bar the jurisdiction of the Court. There was no adjudication on the matter. It was not even necessary for the Court to have read the
complaint before rejecting it as not properly stamped.
As the Court of the Assistant First-class Magistrate in charge of Calicut Division had jurisdiction, we have no power to interfere with his order.
We may say that we entirely agree with his his opinion that it is to be regretted that the Court did not originally deal with the matter u/s 476 of the
Criminal Procedure Code instead of merely giving sanction to prosecute. We dismiss the petition.