HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is a petition for revision directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeals of Balbir Singh and Jagir Singh petitioners against their convictions under section 326, Indian Penal Code, and sentences of two years' rigorous imprisonment each were dismissed, and the only contention urged in revision on behalf of the petitioners is that, in view of the amendment to section 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 26 of 1955, the trying magistrate who was specially empowered under section 30 of the Code had no longer any jurisdiction to try a case under section 326, Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Before the amendment, section 30 of the Code ran as follows :-
"In Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Oudh, Madhya Bharat, Hyderabad, Mysore, Patiala and East Punjab States Union and Rajasthan, in all Part C States, and in those parts of the other States in which there are Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners the State Government may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 28 or section 29, invest the District Magistrate of the first Class, with power to try as a Magistrate all offences both punishable with death."
(3.) By virtue of the amendment, the section now reads as follows :-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in section 28 or section 29, the State Government may, in consultation with the High Court, invest any District Magistrate, Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class with power to try as a Magistrate all offences not punishable with death or with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years :
Provided that no District Magistrate, Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class shall be invested with such powers unless he has, for not less than ten years, exercised as a Magistrate of the first class.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.