Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)The Maharashtra Prohibition Act
Section 61 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Ghulam Muhammad Khan vs Emperor on 22 December, 1924
Mr. Chokshi referred to me a decision in a case of Ghulam Ali v Emperor, AIR 1945, Lah 47, where it was held that "from a strict reading of S. 523, it was clear that the order could be passed not on the application of a party but on a report by the police. The facts of that case were that the police acting on some information, recovered from petitioner's possession a horse on 10-9-41. The police did not report the seizure thereof to the Magistrate as they should have done. But the petitioner himself approached the Magistrate who passed n order on 15-9-41 directing the police to hand over the horse to him on security of Rs.400. The Magistrate was then moved by the complainant to direct the police to send up a chalan. The police reported that the were no grounds on which they could send up a chalan. The led him to put an application for the restoration of the horse to him and after making some inquiry, the Magistrate passed n order on 16th may 1942 that the horse should be made over to the complainant, namely the respondents and referred Ghulam Ali, petitioner , to the Civil Court if he had any objection. In the meanwhile, the horse was made over by the police to the petitioner as originally directed by the learned magistrate. The petitioner then went in revision to the learned Sessions Judge against the subsequent order of the Magistrate who holding the order of the Magistrate to be one under S.517. Criminal Procedure Code, remanded it for further inquiry. On a matter taken to the High Court in revision, it was held that as there had been no inquiry or trial in the case, section 517 could not come into operation, and the order of the Magistrate could not come within S. 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further observed that the Magistrate had no right to review his own order, as the first order passed by him must be presumed to have been passed under S. 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even the learned Sessions Judge was found to have erred in assuming jurisdiction for there is no right of appeal to, or revision by the Sessions Judge under S. 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then it has been further observed that all the proceedings in the case, except the original order making over possession of the horse to the petitioner were bad in law and must be set aside. Then come the pertinent observations - relied upon by Mr. Chokshi, the learned Government Pleader for the State they ran thus:
Section 99 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Section 98 in The Maharashtra Prohibition Act [Entire Act]
Pranab Kumar Mitra vs The State Of West Bengal And Another on 3 October, 1958
(7) It was then said that the applicant has not gone to the Session Court against an order passed by the learned Magistrate and has come directly to this Court,. Ordinarily it is true that the High Court is reluctant to entertain any petition in revision directed against any order passed by the Magistrate. But even if he had gone to the Sessions Court it was not possible for it to pass any adequate orders, and it would have been required to refer the matter to the High Court for having suitable orders in the matter. That would have taken good lot of time and the purpose behind the claim in the petition would obviously be frustrated. There is no bar under any provision of law, saying that an application in revision cannot lie directly to the High Court and that an application in revision cannot lie directly to the High Court and that it must always come through the Sessions Court. Since S. 523 does not give any right of appeal or of revision by the Session Court against any order passed under that section, in my opinion, it would be perfectly competent to entertain and pass suitable orders in revision by this Court provided the order passed by the learned Magistrate has clearly occasioned failure of justice. Now apart from what I have said above, with regard to the authority of the magistrate under S. 523 of Criminal Procedure code, it is clear that the police has not chosen to send a report for such a long time viz., about a month or so, and having regard to the nature of the property seized by the police with regard to the offence under the Prohibition Act said to have been committed by some other person, there was bound to be failure of justice for the simple reason that for the fault or default of the police officer in complying with the mandatory provisions under S. 523 of the Code, he would have to suffer. Not only, that, but the inaction on the part of the Magistrate in not even choosing to call for any such report so as to enable him to make an inquiry with regard to the application made to him was bound to occasion failure of justice. When any such failure of justice is brought to the notice of this Court, it can certainly interfere and see that justice is done to the party, as apart from revisional jurisdiction it can exercise against any such order, as observed in a case of Pranab Kumar Mitra v State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 144, in hearing and determining cases under S. 489 of the Code, the High Court discharges its statutory function of supervising the act, ministration of justice on the criminal side.
1