Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Maidhan Das Agarwalla vs R.B. Medhi And Anr. on 17 June, 1953 cites

G.P. Stewart vs Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury on 24 May, 1939

General appearing on behalf of Mr. Medhi as giving Mr. Medhi the identical power that was once exercised by Mr. D. N. Hazarika at Gauhati. The wordings of the notification are quite clear and it does not relate to the powers exercised by Mr. Hazarika as a Special Judge, but is confined to ordinary civil and cirminal jurisdiction. Another contention of Mr. Lahiri was that the Gazette Notification of 9-9-1952, invested the incumbent in the office of the Subordinate Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, L. A. D. at Gauhati with the powers of a Special Judge and those powers once vested still remain with the office because the authorisation was not in the name of Mr. Hazarika and relies on Section 15 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, for support. But it is admitted by both sides that Mr. Hazarika was the only, person then in the office of the Subordinate Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge in the Lower Assam Districts and the powers were vested in him by virtue of the office and he has not been removed from that office ever since though his Headquarters had been changed from Gauhati to Dhubri. The power evidently was not with the headquarter but with the person in office. Mr. Lahiri's contention that Mr. Medhi succeeded Mr. Hazarika in office earlier to the Gazette Notification of 19-1-1953 and stepped into his shoes as a Special Judge with regard to all pending cases is not correct in the face of the other notification whereby he is distinctly deprived of all powers to act as a Special Judge with respect to offences committed in the Goalpara District. Mr. Medhi had at no time acquired any seisin over the case in question and his exercising the powers of a Special Judge with respect to this case specially after the Gazette notification of 19-1-53 amounted only to an illegal usurpation of powers not sanctioned by law. Another contention of Mr. Lahiri was that the notification of 19-1-1953 limiting the jurisdiction of Special Judges could not have been retrospective in its operation and once the jurisdiction to try the case vested in Mr. Medhi, he cannot be subsequently deprived of the same by any provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act & he relied on--'G. P. Stewart v. Brojendra Kishorc Roy, AIR 1939 Cal 628 (A), to show that unless the parent Act itself clearly authorised the issue of a Notification with retrospective effect it must be presumed that such a notification is forbidden, or in other words inoperative in its effect. But this contention has no application to the facts of this case as in our opinion, the power to try the case in question never vested in Mr. R-. B. Medhi at any time. The contention, if correct, applied to the seisin of Mr. Hazarika as well, and by subsequent notification, he could not be deprived of the same in favour of Mr. Medhi.
Calcutta High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 60 - Full Document
1   2 Next