DURGA DAS RUKHIT Vs. QUEEN-EMPRESS
LAWS(PVC)-1900-1-14
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on January 09,1900

DURGA DAS RUKHIT Appellant
VERSUS
QUEEN-EMPRESS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prinsep, J - (1.) The matter before us relates to proceedings before the Magistrate, which have arisen out of proceedings before a Deputy Collector under the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894).
(2.) The two petitioners put in claims to compensation for certain lands taken under that Act, and they have now been charged with offences which may shortly be described as forgery and perjury in making and attempting to substantiate those claims. The Deputy Collector was unusually dilatory in those proceedings, and apparently was unfavourably disposed in respect to those claims, and be abstained from making any award or reference to the Civil Court, although he was pressed to do so by the petitioners. The petitioners then moved the District Collector who sent for the record, and it would seem that the orders for the prosecution of the petitioners, though subsequently passed by the Deputy Collector, were at the suggestion of the District Collector. The Deputy Collector, on 9 September, passed orders under Section 195 of the Criminal P. C. giving sanction to the prosecution of the petitioners for certain offences set out in his order, those offences having been committed in or relating to the proceedings taken by him under the Land Acquisition Act, and he at the same time reported this to the District Magistrate "for necessary action." The District Magistrate then took cognizance of these offences. He issued warrants for the arrest of the petitioners for certain specified offences he made over the cases to be tried separately to various Magistrates subordinate to him; he directed in respect to one of these cases that the Magistrate should commit to the Court of Session, if he finds the evidence sufficient," and by another order of the same date he directed that bail should, not be accepted "as the offences are not bailable." The petitioners then moved ibis Court to quash these proceedings as void and contrary to law, and they also asked in the alternative that the cases might be transferred to another District away from the influence of this District Magistrate.
(3.) A rule was granted only to consider the matter of transfer of the cases.;


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