Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Simhadri Krishnamurthi

Disposition Reference accepted Court Chennai Decided Jul 27, 1951
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787782

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Case No. 1561 of 1950 and Case Ref. No. 78 of 1950
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Reference accepted

Case Summary

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

Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), Section 438--Sessions Judge, referring officer--Competent to make reference to High Court; Where the referring officer is the Sessions Judge, and not a District Magistrate, it is competent for him to refer a case to the High Court under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Reference accepted
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 417 and 438

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Simhadri Krishnamurthi

Advocate Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 417 and 438
Reported In
AIR1953Mad259; (1951)IIMLJ270

Excerpt

code of criminal procedure (act v of 1898), section 438--sessions judge, referring officer--competent to make reference to high court; where the referring officer is the sessions judge, and not a district magistrate, it is competent for him to refer a case to the high court under section 438, criminal procedure code, as he is not the person expected to move the state to file an appeal under section 417 of the criminal procedure code.; eravadu v. the state (1950) 2 m.l.j. 774. - - 1. i have perused the records and heard the learned public prosecutor. nobody appears for the accused. no doubt there was an error committed by the learned assistant sessions judge, tenali, as he himself has admitted when he took 16 years instead of 18 years, (relying on an uncorrected copy of the penal code in his office not incorporating the amendment in this respect in 1949) as the relevant age. so he took the girl's consent to be valid and committed errors right along the line on that basis and acquitted the accused simhadri krishnamurthi who was charged with kidnapping the girl tulasamma from the custody of her lawful guardian with intent to marry her against her will. the learned sessions judge, guntur, discovered this patent error on perusing the calendar in the case and after calling for the records and examining them. he has made this reference. the government had not filed an appeal under section 417, cr. p. c., and the aggrieved girl or her guardian has not filed a revision petition against the acquittal. the learned public prosecutor drew my attention to the decision of somasundaram j. in -- 'eravadu and others v. the state', 1951 mwn crl p. 16 (referred case no. 22 of 1950) wherein the learned judge held that a reference by a district magistrate under section 438, cr. p. c. was not competent as his remedy was only by way of moving the state to file an appeal under section 417, cr. p. c. here the referring officer is the sessions judge and not a district magistrate and it is certainly competent for him to refer this case to this court under section 438, cr. p. c. as he is not the person expected to move the state to file an appeal under section 417, cr. p. c. so i accept the reference of the learned sessions judge and set aside the acquittal of simhadri krishnamurthi in s. c. no. 38 of 1950 by the assistant sessions judge of tenali and direct the case to be tried afresh by the sessions judge, guntur.

Full Judgment

1. I have perused the records and heard the learned Public Prosecutor. Nobody appears for the accused. No doubt there was an error committed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali, as he himself has admitted when he took 16 years instead of 18 years, (relying on an uncorrected copy of the Penal Code in his office not incorporating the amendment in this respect in 1949) as the relevant age. So he took the girl's consent to be valid and committed errors right along the line on that basis and acquitted the accused Simhadri Krishnamurthi who was charged with kidnapping the girl Tulasamma from the custody of her lawful guardian with intent to marry her against her will. The learned Sessions Judge, Guntur, discovered this patent error on perusing the calendar in the case and after calling for the records and examining them. He has made this reference. The Government had not filed an appeal under Section 417, Cr. P. C., and the aggrieved girl or her guardian has not filed a revision petition against the acquittal. The learned Public Prosecutor drew my attention to the decision of Somasundaram J. in -- 'Eravadu and others v. The State', 1951 MWN Crl p. 16 (Referred Case No. 22 of 1950) wherein the learned Judge held that a reference by a District Magistrate under Section 438, Cr. P. C. was not competent as his remedy was only by way of moving the State to file an appeal under Section 417, Cr. P. C. Here the referring officer is the Sessions Judge and not a District Magistrate and it is certainly competent for him to refer this case to this court under Section 438, Cr. P. C. as he is not the person expected to move the State to file an appeal under Section 417, Cr. P. C. So I accept the reference of the learned Sessions Judge and set aside the acquittal of Simhadri Krishnamurthi in S. C. No. 38 of 1950 by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Tenali and direct the case to be tried afresh by the Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial