Rangacharul and anr. Vs. Emperor

Rangacharul and anr. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 08, 1905

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/785254

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/785254
Court: Chennai
Judge: Sankaran Nair, J.
Decided On: Sep 08, 1905
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Act V of 1898, Section 421--Summary rejection of appeal. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rangacharul and anr.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: (1906)ILR29Mad236

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - act v of 1898, section 421--summary rejection of appeal. - sankaran nair, j.1. the memorandum of appeal to the lower court is signed by a pleader; it was presented to the magistrate who was in camp, by the appellant in person, on the 13th december 1904 and was summarily rejected at once without giving a reasonable opportunity to the pleader to appear.2. the magistrate was wrong in thus rejecting the memorandum. nor does the case appear to be one in which the appeal ought to have been summarily rejected without sending for the records. the conviction is based on the evidence of witnesses who are no longer members of the company and are alleged by the accused to have been dismissed by them. their evidence ought to have been read by the magistrate or he should have heard the pleader before dismissing the appeal.3. i accordingly set aside the order of the magistrate, under section 421 of the criminal procedure code, direct the first-class magistrate of masulipatam sub-division to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law.

Full Judgment

Sankaran Nair, J.

1. The memorandum of appeal to the lower Court is signed by a pleader; it was presented to the Magistrate who was in camp, by the appellant in person, on the 13th December 1904 and was summarily rejected at once without giving a reasonable opportunity to the pleader to appear.

2. The Magistrate was wrong in thus rejecting the memorandum. Nor does the case appear to be one in which the appeal ought to have been summarily rejected without sending for the records. The conviction is based on the evidence of witnesses who are no longer members of the company and are alleged by the accused to have been dismissed by them. Their evidence ought to have been read by the Magistrate or he should have heard the pleader before dismissing the appeal.

3. I accordingly set aside the order of the Magistrate, under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, direct the First-class Magistrate of Masulipatam Sub-division to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law.

Same Parties Rangacharul and anr. vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sankaran Nair, J.

Criminal