Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Krishna Pillai

Disposition Criminal reference accepted Court Kerala Decided Sep 18, 1959
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/722064

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Ref. No. 14 of 1959
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Criminal reference accepted

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- - This was an independent action and the First Class Magistrate was exclusively competent to go on with the proceedings after passing a preliminary order under Section 112 in case he is satisfied that there are proper grounds to justify the adoption of such a course. He refused to exercise his jurisdiction in th...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Criminal reference accepted
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 107(3), 109, 112 and 151

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Krishna Pillai

Advocate Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Advocate N.D.P. Namburipad, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 107(3), 109, 112 and 151
Reported In
AIR1960Ker227

Excerpt

- - this was an independent action and the first class magistrate was exclusively competent to go on with the proceedings after passing a preliminary order under section 112 in case he is satisfied that there are proper grounds to justify the adoption of such a course. he refused to exercise his jurisdiction in that matter and he was wrong in releasing the counter-petitioner solely for the reason that he had no report before him from the second class magistrate under clause (3) of section 107. the order of the first class magistrate is clearly illegal and cannot be supported......course. for proceeding in that manner, he need not have called for a report from the sub-magistrate under clause (3) of section 107 of the code. in fact that clause does not contemplate the calling for of such a report. the clause comes into play only when proceedings are to be initiated by a magistrate not empowered by clause (1) of the section. here the proceedings had to be initiated by the first class magistrate himself and he is competent to do so.the first class magistrate appears to have been under a misapprehension that he was called upon to continue the proceedings which the sub-magistrate had started by the arrest of the counter-petitioner under section 151. that action had been dropped for all practical purposes and the charge sheet filed before the first class magistrate was for starting fresh and independent proceedings. it follows therefore that the first class magistrate had only to make up his mind on the materials made available to him whether he should initiate proceedings by passing a preliminary order. he refused to exercise his jurisdiction in that matter and he was wrong in releasing the counter-petitioner solely for the reason that he had no report before.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The point raised in the reference is correct and has to prevail. Even though the counter-petitioner was arrested under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Magistrate who ordered such arrest did not proceed with the matter. The police also did not want the case to go on before the Sub-Magistrate. The police wanted to start proceedings against the counter-petitioner under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly an independent charge was filed under Section 109 before the Executive First Class Magistrate.

This was an independent action and the First Class Magistrate was exclusively competent to go on with the proceedings after passing a preliminary order under Section 112 in case he is satisfied that there are proper grounds to justify the adoption of such a course. For proceeding in that manner, he need not have called for a report from the Sub-Magistrate under Clause (3) of Section 107 of the Code. In fact that clause does not contemplate the calling for of such a report. The clause comes into play only when proceedings are to be initiated by a Magistrate not empowered by Clause (1) of the section. Here the proceedings had to be initiated by the First Class Magistrate himself and he is competent to do so.

The First Class Magistrate appears to have been under a misapprehension that he was called upon to continue the proceedings which the Sub-Magistrate had started by the arrest of the counter-petitioner under Section 151. That action had been dropped for all practical purposes and the charge sheet filed before the First Class Magistrate was for starting fresh and independent proceedings. It follows therefore that the First Class Magistrate had only to make up his mind on the materials made available to him whether he should initiate proceedings by passing a preliminary order. He refused to exercise his jurisdiction in that matter and he was wrong in releasing the counter-petitioner solely for the reason that he had no report before him from the Second Class Magistrate under Clause (3) of Section 107. The order of the First Class Magistrate is clearly illegal and cannot be supported. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge is accordingly accepted.

2. The acceptance of the reference will normally have the effect of vacating the order of theFirst Class Magistrate and thereby making it obligatory on his part to go with the case in accordancewith law. But the matter is now more than an yearold and nothing untoward has happened in themeanwhile. Hence we think that it is not desirableto take any further action on the charge-sheet filedby the Police before the First Class Magistrate andwe direct accordingly. If under, the circumstancesas they exist now, it is found necessary to startsecurity proceedings against the counter-petitioner,it will be open to the police to initiate fresh proceedings.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial