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 · 161 wordsThe provisions of Section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, are explicit, but have not been observed by the District Magistrate. The offence with
which the accused were charged is not one triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions. The District Magistrate therefore had no power u/s 436 to
direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to commit the accused for trial. In any case the District Magistrate should have given the accused an
opportunity of showing cause before himself why the commitment should not be made. The opportunity given to show cause before the Assistant
Magistrate cannot be regarded as a compliance with the law, though the Assistant Magistrate forwarded a statement of the accused to the District
Magistrate. We set aside the commitment, and the order of the District Magistrate, directing the commitment to be made.
It is open to the District Magistrate to pass fresh orders on the complainant''s petition in accordance with law u/s 436 or 437, Criminal
Procedure Code.