LEGAL REMEMBRANCER Vs. TULARAM BARODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an acquittal. A preliminary objection is taken that the appeal has not been presented by a Public Prosecutor within the meaning of Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The appeal was presented by the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bengal, the officer, who by notification of date the 19th May of 1915.has been appointed by the Local Government to be, by virtue of his office, Public Prosecutor in all cases heard by this Court in the exercise of its Appellate Jurisdiction. The objection is founded on the fact that the office of Legal Remembrancer, which received legislative sanction in Regulation VIII of 1816, was abolished by Regulation XIII of 1829, and appears to pre-suppose that there is no office or officer properly so-called. Prom the official papers placed before us we find, however, that the office of Legal Remembrancer was revived in 1814 or 1845, and the fact that the office is now the creation of executive or administrative order in no way obscures the identity of the officer. We, therefore, reject the preliminary objection.

(3.) The appeal is against an order of Mr. S.P. Sarbadhikary, an Honorary Presidency Magistrate, who by his order, dated the 21st March 1918, acquitted the accused, one Tularam Barodia, of the charge preferred against him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.