Athangarayan Vs. Gopalan Chetty

Athangarayan vs Gopalan Chetty

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 29, 1904

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781598

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/781598
Court: Chennai
Judge: Davis and ;Benson, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 29, 1904
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 197 - Charge of extortion against a Village Magistrate not acting in his judicial capacity--Sanction--High Court--Revision. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Athangarayan

Respondent

Gopalan Chetty

Legal References

Cases Referred: See Kandasami Chetty v. Soli Gounden
Reported In: 4Ind.Cas.1056

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 197 - charge of extortion against a village magistrate not acting in his judicial capacity--sanction--high court--revision. - order1. the village magistrate was not acting as a judge when the alleged extortion was committed. see kandasami chetty v. soli gounden 23 m. 540.2. no sanction was, therefore, necessary. the orders of the courts below requiring sanction are the cause of the delay that has occurred since the offence was committed, and we, therefore, cannot refuse to interfere on the ground that the judge's order was passed so long ago as february 1903. we set aside the order of the sub-magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction, and we direct him to restore the case (c.c. no. 415 of 1902) to his file and to dispose of it according to law.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The Village Magistrate was not acting as a Judge when the alleged extortion was committed. See Kandasami Chetty v. Soli Gounden 23 M. 540.

2. No sanction was, therefore, necessary. The orders of the Courts below requiring sanction are the cause of the delay that has occurred since the offence was committed, and we, therefore, cannot refuse to interfere on the ground that the Judge's order was passed so long ago as February 1903. We set aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction, and we direct him to restore the case (C.C. No. 415 of 1902) to his file and to dispose of it according to law.

Same Parties Athangarayan vs Gopalan Chetty Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Davis and ;Benson, JJ.

Criminal