UTTAM SINGH Vs. KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of acquittal by the learned Magistrate with powers under sec. 30 posted at Bharatpur, dated the 14th of July, 1956. The complaint against the accused was under sec. 304 I. P. C. and the learned Magistrate after trial acquitted the accused. A revision was filed before the Additional District Magistrate, Bharatpur ; but he dismissed it on the ground that there could be an appeal against the order of acquittal and so he would not interfere in revision.

(2.) THE complainant has come in revision with the allegation that the Magistrate empowered under sec. 30 had no jurisdiction to try the case. It was urged that the offence under sec. 304 I. P. C. was punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. A Magistrate with powers under sec. 30 could under the old Code try all offences not punishable with death ; but under the amendment by Act No. 26 of 1955 his powers were restricted for trial of offences not punishable with death or with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term exceeding 7 years. It was urged that this amendment came into force on 1st January, 1956, while the order of acquittal was pased 7 months later on this 14th of July, 1956. Learned counsel does not seem to take into notice, sec. 116 of the Act (No 26 of 1955) which says amongst other things that the provisions of sec. 30 of the principal Act as amended by the Act shall not apply to any trial which on the date of such commencement is pending before any Magistrate and every such trial shall be continued and disposed of as if the amending Act had not been passed. In the present case an incomplete challan was presented to the Magistrate on 11th October, 1955 and a complete one on 21st October, 1955, and the evidence came to be recorded on 23rd November, 1955. Proceedings of the trial were pending before the Magistrate on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act and, therefore, they were to be continued if sec. 30 had not been amended. THE Magistrate, therefore, had jurisdiction to continue the proceedings and his order is not without jurisdiction.