Skip to content


Tirumana Goundan and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Civil

Court

Chennai

Decided On

Reported in

AIR1929Mad544

Appellant

Tirumana Goundan and anr.

Respondent

Emperor

Cases Referred

and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor

Excerpt:


- - emperor air1926bom534 ,that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, the question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused.order1. we concur in the view expressed in forbes v. ali haider khan : air1925cal1246 and khushal jeram v. emperor : air1926bom534 , that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, the question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. we see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance. the petition is dismissed.

Judgment:


ORDER

1. We concur in the view expressed in Forbes v. Ali Haider Khan : AIR1925Cal1246 and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom534 , that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, The question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. We see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance. The petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //