DWAEKA NATH MONDUL Vs. BENI MADHAB BANERJEE
LAWS(PVC)-1901-2-9
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on February 18,1901

DWAEKA NATH MONDUL Appellant
VERSUS
BENI MADHAB BANERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Maclean, C J - (1.) I have heard nothing in the argument addressed to us to warrant me in changing or even qualifying the opinion I expressed in the ruling in the case of the Queen-Empress V/s. Dolgobind Dass (1900) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 211; (S.C.) 5 C.W.N. 169 and I adhere to that ruling. The argument in this case, however, has led me to doubt, whether the principle I have enunciated ought not to be held to apply to the case of a Mofussil Magistrate equally with that of a Presidency Magistrate, and whether the authorities which would appear to decide the contrary are well founded in law. That question is not before us to-day.
(2.) I answer the question by saying that a Presidency Magistrate is competent to re-hear--I do not like the expression " revive," though I am aware it has been frequently used--a warrant-case triable under Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has discharged the accused person. Prlnsep, J.
(3.) I am of the same opinion. I think it necessary, however, to add a few words on my own behalf in connection with the question raised before us.;


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