EMPEROR Vs. ABDUR RAZZAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order, dated the 3rd of February, 1915, the Sessions Judge of Cawnpore transferred two criminal appeals, Nos. 7 of 1915 and 14 of 1915 pending in his Court to the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge for trial.

(2.) The section of the Code which he considered justified this procedure on his part was Section 193, Clause 2. This section provides that Assistant Sessions Judges shall try such cases only as the Sessions Judge of the division by general or special order may make over to them for trial. In the opinion of the learned Sessions Judge the word "cases," as used in this clause is, not defined, and he saw no reason why it should be confined to "cases " and not extend to appeals or other matters.

(3.) This Court has called for the records of the cases in question by the powers conferred upon it by Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, So far as I know the word "case" has never been defined in any General Clauses Act or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor am I aware that this particular point has come up to this Court for decision. 3. In Chattarpal Singh v. Raja Ram (1885) I.L.R. 7 All. 661 Mr. Justice Mahmud held that so far as the Code of Civil Procedure was concerned the word "case" should be understood in its broadest and most ordinary sense, including all adjudications which might constitute the subject of appeal or revision. With all due respect I think a safer rule is to consider the word in connection with the particular Code or Law in which it is found. Under the present circumstances there is considerable difficulty in assigning to the word such a broad meaning. The first difficulty will be found in Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section deals with appeals. The right of appeal is a creation of statute. Without some particular provision authorizing an appeal no right of appeal is conferred. Even when a right of appeal has been conferred, the court to which such appeal lies must also be specified. A right of appeal without any specification as to the court to which such appeal should be preferred would be a useless right.