Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4536 = 1965 SLD 4536 = 1965 PLD 46
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 383 of 1961, decided on 21st April 1964.  
Presented By: S. M. Murshed and A. Subhan Chowdhury, JJ
M. A. Khondkar and M. M. Hoque for Petitioners.   Moinul Haq with Lutfar Rahman for the Opposite-Party.  

Munshi ABDUS SAMAD MIAN AND OTHERS Petitioners  

VERSUS

.   KESHAB LAL GOPE-Opposite-Party  

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 476-B

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   S. 476-B-Power of appellate Court-Extent.   The only power which the appellate Court has under section 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, is that, in an appropriate case, it can itself make the complaint or direct the withdrawal of such complaint. Of course, it can affirm the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. No other course is open to the appellate Court and it is obvious from the provisions of the section that the appellate Court has no jurisdiction to remand back the case to the trial Court. This is apparent from the plain language of the section.   Manir Ahmed Chowdhury v. Jogesh Chandra Roy I L R 55 Cal. 1277 ; Rammiranjan v. Muk Nath Singh 43 Cr. L J 569 and Vethoba v. Goral 51 Cr. L J 176 ref.   (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   S. 476-Provisions are not designed to launch prosecution of party allegedly guilty of giving false evidence without considering expediency of such prosecution.   The provisions of section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not designed to enable the Court to launch upon a prosecution of a party alleged to be guilty of giving false evidence in Court in every case that comes before the Court, without considering the expediency of such prosecution. The section makes it obligatory upon the Court to consider whether it is expedient, in the interest of justice, to do so. This requirement is a very important obligation which should not be lost sight of. The Court should not allow itself to be converted into a machinery for achieving the private ends of parties. ORDER   MURSHED, J.-This application is directed against an order passed by an Additional District Judge of Bakerganj in respect of an appeal heard and disposed of by him under the provisions of section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.   Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract and obtained an ex parte decree in respect thereof. Before the suit was thus disposed of by the trial Court, there were some attempts by the defendant to obtain time from the Court to file a written statement. An application was made in the trial Court that the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register