Subbiah Pillai Vs. Emperor

Subbiah Pillai vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 18, 1919

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/804024

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/804024
Court: Chennai
Judge: Spencer and ;Krishnan, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 18, 1919
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 197 - Village Magistrate, preparation of false record by, in case pending before him--Sanction for prosecution, whether necessary--Proceedings, initiation of, without sanction, effect of--Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Sections 167, 218, 469, 471. -

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subbiah Pillai

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred: Palaniandy Pillai v. Arunachellum Pillai
Reported In: 55Ind.Cas.105

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 197 - village magistrate, preparation of false record by, in case pending before him--sanction for prosecution, whether necessary--proceedings, initiation of, without sanction, effect of--penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 167, 218, 469, 471. - .....to an offense, sanction is necessary under section 197, before any court can take cognizance of the offence of which he is accused in connection with it. the case in palaniandy pillai v. arunachellum pillai 3 ind. cas. 387 : 32 m.p 255 : 4 m.l.t. 473 : 9 cr. l.j. 89 is distinguishable on the ground that the criminal case in respect of which the village magistrate there concerned was alleged to have fabricated a false record was an alleged criminal case which had no existence in fact.2. whether a public servant could make a record in an imaginary case otherwise than as such public servant, when it is one of the functions of his office to hear and dispose of oases, is a question we are not called upon to decide in this case, although we doubt whether miller, j., was right in observing that a judge who fabricates a record in which he figures as judge cannot properly be said to be acting as judge when he does so.3. in the present case there was a real case pending before the village magistrate, and the only part about it which is alleged to be unreal and false is the judgment and calendar and muchilika which that magistrate prepared.4. we, therefore, hold that the district magistrate (mr. maciver) was wrong in deciding in his proceedings of may 6th, 1918, that no sanction was necessary.5. the whole proceedings both of the second class magistrate discharging the accused and of the sessions judge directing him to be committed for trial are vitiated ab initio and are hereby set aside. we must leave it to the complainant, if he wishes to proceed further with his complaint, to obtain the district magistrate's sanction as a preliminary to any court taking cognizance of these offences committed by the petitioner as a village magistrate.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. We feel no doubt that when the petitioner, who was at the time the acting Village Magistrate of Kuttapanjan, prepared a record relating to a case which was actually pending before him as such Village Magistrate, he did so not in a private capacity but acting as a Judge, and if the making of that record amounts to an offense, sanction is necessary under Section 197, before any Court can take cognizance of the offence of which he is accused in connection with it. The case in Palaniandy Pillai v. Arunachellum Pillai 3 Ind. Cas. 387 : 32 M.p 255 : 4 M.L.T. 473 : 9 Cr. L.J. 89 is distinguishable on the ground that the criminal case in respect of which the Village Magistrate there concerned was alleged to have fabricated a false record was an alleged criminal case which had no existence in fact.

2. Whether a public servant could make a record in an imaginary case otherwise than as such public servant, when it is one of the functions of his office to hear and dispose of oases, is a question we are not called upon to decide in this case, although we doubt whether Miller, J., was right in observing that a Judge who fabricates a record in which he figures as Judge cannot properly be said to be acting as Judge when he does so.

3. In the present case there was a real case pending before the Village Magistrate, and the only part about it which is alleged to be unreal and false is the judgment and calendar and Muchilika which that Magistrate prepared.

4. We, therefore, hold that the District Magistrate (Mr. MacIver) was wrong in deciding in his proceedings of May 6th, 1918, that no sanction was necessary.

5. The whole proceedings both of the Second Class Magistrate discharging the accused and of the Sessions Judge directing him to be committed for trial are vitiated ab initio and are hereby set aside. We must leave it to the complainant, if he wishes to proceed further with his complaint, to obtain the District Magistrate's sanction as a preliminary to any Court taking cognizance of these offences committed by the petitioner as a Village Magistrate.

Same Parties Subbiah Pillai vs Emperor Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Spencer and ;Krishnan, JJ.

Land Acquisition District Magistrate In connection with Public servant In respect of criminal case Second class Relating to