Queen-empress Vs. Vasudevayya

Queen-empress vs Vasudevayya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 23, 1896

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/785344

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/785344
Court: Chennai
Judge: Daveis and ;Boddam, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 23, 1896
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Act X of 1882, Section 419 - 'Presented.' -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Vasudevayya

Legal References

Cases Referred: Empress v. Arlappa I.L.R.
Reported In: (1896)ILR19Mad355

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, act x of 1882, section 419 - 'presented.' - order1. as ruled by the learned chief justice in queen-empress v. arlappa i.l.r. 15 mad. 137 the word 'presented' in section 419 of the code of criminal procedure 'evidently means that such petition shall be delivered to the proper officer of the court either by the appellant or his pleader.'2. it is clear that what the law requires is that the petition of appeal be presented by one or other of those two persons, and not by anybody else. in order to secure this, it is necessary that the presentation be made in person. so that the same reason applies for not recognizing a petition found in a petition box as to one sent by post, namely, that it might have been deposited there by a third person who could not legally present it. the head assistant magistrate was, therefore, right in returning the petition of appeal in this case for legal presentation, and when that presentation was made, the appeal being time-barred was rightly rejected.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. As ruled by the learned Chief Justice in Queen-Empress v. Arlappa I.L.R. 15 Mad. 137 the word 'presented' in Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 'evidently means that such petition shall be delivered to the proper officer of the Court either by the appellant or his pleader.'

2. It is clear that what the law requires is that the petition of appeal be presented by one or other of those two persons, and not by anybody else. In order to secure this, it is necessary that the presentation be made in person. So that the same reason applies for not recognizing a petition found in a petition box as to one sent by post, namely, that it might have been deposited there by a third person who could not legally present it. The Head Assistant Magistrate was, therefore, right in returning the petition of appeal in this case for legal presentation, and when that presentation was made, the appeal being time-barred was rightly rejected.

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Vasudevayya Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Daveis and ;Boddam, JJ.

Criminal