Emperor Vs Natvarlal Nagindas

Bombay High Court 16 Dec 1930 Criminal Reference No. 71 of 1930 (1931) 33 BOMLR 312
Bench: Division Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Reference No. 71 of 1930

Hon'ble Bench

J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J; Murphy, J

Acts Referred

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 29B

Judgement Text

Translate:

J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.@mdashThis is a reference to us by the District Magistrate of Surat. The two accused in this case who were alleged to be

under the age of fifteen years were convicted of theft u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code by the First Class Magistrate of Chorasi. The learned

Magistrate, acting u/s 563 of the Criminal Procedure Code, released the accused on their entering into a bond of Rs. 50 to be of good behavior

for two months. The District Magistrate has referred the case to us saying that the learned Magistrate who tried the case had no jurisdiction to do

so because he is not one of those specially empowered u/s 29B of the Criminal Procedure Code,

2. Section 29B of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down that any offence, other than one punishable with death or transportation for life,

committed by any person who at the date when he appears or is brought before the Court is under the age of fifteen years may be tried by the

class of Magistrates therein referred to including a Magistrate specially empowered by the Local Government to exercise the powers conferred by

Section 8 (1) of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897. It seems to me that the words "" may be tried "" are permissive. No doubt the word ""may"" is

sometimes construed as ""shall"" but obviously its prima facie effect is merely permissive and not obligatory. It seems to roe that u/s 29B of the

Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate other than one of those particularly referred to in the section before whom an offender under the age of

fifteen years is brought was intended to have a discretion. He may deal with the matter under the ordinary provisions of the Code or he may direct

that the accused be dealt with u/s 29B of the Criminal Procedure Code, that is to say, be tried by one of the Magistrates specially empowered

under the section. But, in my view, he is not bound to deal with the case in that way. I think this reference was, therefore, unnecessary (though it

was proper to raise the point) and no order need be made upon it.

Murphy, J.

3. I agree.

From The Blog
State of Rajasthan and Others vs Union of India and Others
Oct
22
2025

Landmark Judgements

State of Rajasthan and Others vs Union of India and Others
Read More
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
Oct
22
2025

Landmark Judgements

Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983)
Read More