QUEEN-EMPRESS Vs. CHENCHI REDDI
LAWS(PVC)-1900-10-1
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on October 19,1900

QUEEN-EMPRESS Appellant
VERSUS
CHENCHI REDDI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) So far as the words of Section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code are concerned, we should have felt no doubt that the Deputy Magistrate was not disqualified to try the case. The terms of the illustration however give rise to a difficulty.
(2.) The question whether a given case falls within the provisions of Section 556 must be a question of fact to be determined by the circumstances of the particular case. In the Calcutta case to which our attention has been called (Girish Chunder Ghose V/s. The Queen-Empress I.L.R. 20 Calc. 857, where the Magistrate was held disqualified to try the case, it appeared that he had taken a vary active part in connection with the case as an executive officer. On the other hand, in the two Allahabad oases (In the matter of the petition of Ganeshi I.L.R. 15 All. 192 and Queen-Empress V/s. Narain Singh I.L.R. 22 All. 340, the Court held the Magistrate was not disqualified. The illustration says: A, as Collector upon consideration of information furnished to him, directs the prosecution of B for a breach of the Excise Laws. A is disqualified from trying this case as a Magistrate."
(3.) The word used is directs , which we take it, moans institutes, or gives orders for the institution of the prosecution.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.