Raja v Gopal (Cr. Rev. Case No. 32 of 1936)

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Court declined to exercise revisional jurisdiction where the applicant had an alternative remedy by way of case stated. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is discretionary, and particularly in a private prosecution where the Attorney General had declined to prosecute, no order should be made in revision while a remedy by case stated exists. The applicant was granted 14 days to pursue that remedy.

Outcome

Revision application dismissed with leave to pursue case stated procedure

Facts

The applicant, as private prosecutor, charged the respondent with procuring a female under 21 years to have unlawful carnal connexion, alleging offences committed both in India and Kenya. The Resident Magistrate held that on the face of the charge no offence had been committed within his jurisdiction and discharged the respondent. The Attorney General had declined to prosecute. The applicant applied to the Court in revision for an order directing the Resident Magistrate to hear the case on the merits.

Issues

1. Whether the Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside a discharge order where a remedy by way of case stated is available.

Orders

• Application in revision dismissed.
• Applicant granted extension of 14 days from this date to avail himself of remedy by way of case stated.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (6)

• Penal Code s.130(1)
• Penal Code s.131(2)
• Criminal Procedure Code s.349
• Criminal Procedure Code s.353
• Criminal Procedure Code s.354
• Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879 s.33

Cases cited (1)

• Foss v Best [1906] 2 KB 105

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.