PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. MANIKKA GRAMANI AND 9 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is not opposed. I am of opinion that the order of the Sessions Judge directing a retrial is erroneous.

(2.) The Sub-divisional Magistrate, as the Court hearing appeals from the Second Class Magistrate, had jurisdiction under Section 423(1)(6) of the Criminal P. C. to reverse the finding and sentence of the Second Class Magistrate and to "order a retrial by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate" to him as an appellate court. These latter words when read with Sec. 528 ace not to be taken as words of limitation, and do not exclude the appellate court from itself trying the offender, the offence being one within the ordinary jurisdiction of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. This was expressly decided by this Court in the case of Vadakadeth Kanaram in Criminal Revision Case No. 271 of 1890 reported in Weir's Law of Offences, 4 edition, P 481.

(3.) The Sessions Judge was also in error in holding that the Sub-divisional Magistrate entertained the complaint under Section 190(1)(c). If that section had any application at all it is clear that the Magistrate acted under Clause (b) as he had before him the Police Charge sheet stating all the facts.