The Queen-empress Vs. Polavarapu

The Queen-empress vs Polavarapu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 19, 1884

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/779035

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/779035
Court: Chennai
Judge: Hutchins, J.
Decided On: Aug 19, 1884
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 4(a), 250 - Compensation--Complaint to Police. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Queen-empress

Respondent

Polavarapu

Legal References

Cases Referred: Ishri v. Bakshi I.L.R.
Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad563

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, sections 4(a), 250 - compensation--complaint to police. - hutchins, j.1. the decision of mr. justice tyrrell in ishri v. bakshi i.l.r. 6 all. 96 seems correct, although his reasons have not been fully-stated. section 4 of the criminal procedure code defines a complaint to mean 'the allegation made orally or in writing to a magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code, that some person has committed an offence.' here the accusation was made to a police officer who took action and laid the matter before the magistrate with a charge sheet.there was no complaint as defined by the code, and the case not having been instituted upon complaint,' the magistrate had no power to award compensation under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure. the award of compensation is accordingly quashed and the 5 rupees must be refunded to the person from whom it was levied.

Full Judgment

Hutchins, J.

1. The decision of Mr. Justice Tyrrell in Ishri v. Bakshi I.L.R. 6 All. 96 seems correct, although his reasons have not been fully-stated. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines a complaint to mean 'the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code, that some person has committed an offence.' Here the accusation was made to a police officer who took action and laid the matter before the Magistrate with a charge sheet.

There was no complaint as defined by the Code, and the case not having been instituted upon complaint,' the Magistrate had no power to award compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The award of compensation is accordingly quashed and the 5 rupees must be refunded to the person from whom it was levied.

Same Parties The Queen-empress vs Polavarapu Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Hutchins, J.

Criminal