Queen-empress Vs. Seshadri Ayyangar

Queen-empress vs Seshadri Ayyangar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 29, 1896

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781591

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/781591
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Benson, J.
Decided On: Oct 29, 1896
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Act X of 1882, Section 487--Judicial proceedings. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Seshadri Ayyangar

Legal References

Reported In: (1897)ILR20Mad383

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, section 487--judicial proceedings. - 1. the order of the high court, dated 28th january 1896, on which the appellant relies, was passed mainly on the ground that there had been undue delay in making the application for transfer. section 487, criminal procedure code, was not referred to in the petition then before the high court, nor in the order of the high court, and was apparently rot considered.2. on the merits we think that it is impossible to say that an order whether original or appellate granting or refusing or revoking sanction under section 195, criminal procedure code, is not a 'judicial proceeding' as defined in section 4 of the act, and looking to the wide terms 'brought under his notice' used in section 487, we are of opinion that the magistrate who declined to revoke the sanction was precluded from himself trying the case.3. the sessions judge was, therefore, right in ordering a new trial. we dismiss this appeal

Full Judgment

1. The order of the High Court, dated 28th January 1896, on which the appellant relies, was passed mainly on the ground that there had been undue delay in making the application for transfer. Section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, was not referred to in the petition then before the High Court, nor in the order of the High Court, and was apparently rot considered.

2. On the merits we think that it is impossible to say that an order whether original or appellate granting or refusing or revoking sanction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, is not a 'Judicial proceeding' as defined in Section 4 of the Act, and looking to the wide terms 'brought under his notice' used in Section 487, we are of opinion that the Magistrate who declined to revoke the sanction was precluded from himself trying the case.

3. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in ordering a new trial. We dismiss this appeal

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Seshadri Ayyangar Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, C.J. and ;Benson, J.

Criminal