The Empress vs Abdool Karim Golam Mahomed on 6 June, 1878
3a. A still more important point canvassed before me is that the learned Magistrate acted improperly in trying the accused for an offence under Section 323, Penal Code, while the complaint petition disclosed that the offences complained of were indeed more serious and heinous capable of being brought under Sections 355, 448, 506, 307 and 342, Penal Code, than the one tried by him and the Magistrate was not therefore justified in ignoring the serious offences and take cognizance of a simple offence in order to enable him to try it summarily. In support of his contention the learned advocate for the petitioners relied on a series of cases decided by the High Courts of the Dominion of India some of which will be adverted to presently. Empress v. Abdul Karim, 4 cal, 18:)3 C.L.R. 44); Kailash Chander v. Joynuddi, 5 C.W.N. 252; Debi Ram v. King Emperor, A.I.R. (11) 1924 ALL. 675 (2) : (25 Cr.L.J. 1168), Balwant Singh v. emperor A.I.R. (26) 1939 ALL.