EMPEROR Vs. JOHN FRANCIS LOBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion this reference is entirely without jurisdiction and of a kind that ought to be severely discouraged. It is no part of the business of District Magistrates to criticize the judicial decisions of Sessions Judges. The point has been considered in exactly similar circumstances in the Calcutta High Court (Queen-Empress v. Karamdi (1895) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 250 and with the conclusion arrived at by those learned Judges I entirely concur.

(2.) Quite apart from that, the case was first investigated and very thoroughly investigated by a Magistrate who discharged the accused. It was then again fully considered by the Sessions Judge in February 1916 who came to the same conclusion as the Magistrate. This concurrent finding is really a finding of fact, being merely as to the degree of care and prudence exercised by the accused. Four months later the District Magistrate makes this reference to the High Court.

(3.) In these circumstances we do not think that this is a proper case for interference in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. We accordingly direct the record and proceedings to be returned. Heaton, J.