LAWS(PVC)-1929-1-163

EMPEROR Vs. RAM LAL

Decided On January 28, 1929
EMPEROR Appellant
V/S
RAM LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is described as a reference by the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur. It appears that the police secured the institution of proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C. against two persons Roshan and Ramlal. The police desired that these two men should be bound down for a period of three years each. The case was heard at the usual great length which is one of the unfortunate characteristics of this type of case, and the Magistrate eventually discharged Ramlal and bound down Roshan for a period of only one year. This did not satisfy the police, and the Prosecuting Inspector approached the District Magistrate with a number of written criticizms of the order of the trial Magistrate and concluded his notes as follows It is therefore requested that the High Court may kindly be moved to enhance the term of one year's notice of Roshan to three years and to order the retrial of Ramlal under Section 437, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The type-written copy, which is all that can be traced in this Court, is undated and shows that the signature to the document is illegible.

(3.) Whether this document was ever perused by the District Magistrate or not we are unable to say. The next proceeding that we have before us is a letter purporting to be from the District Magistrate to the Registrar of this Court, through the Sessions Judge of Shahjahanpur, which purports to be signed on behalf of the District Magistrate by a Deputy Magistrate, apparently Pt. Anirudh Kishan Sharma, and to it was attached the note of the Prosecuting Inspector.