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: Krishna Reddy and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 23, 1909
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/808601

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 195 and 428 - Further evidence--Powers of appellate Court. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Krishna Reddy and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachala Padayachi
Reported In
5Ind.Cas.881

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 195 and 428 - further evidence--powers of appellate court. - order1. in the case of rama aiyar v. venkatachala padayachi 30 m.k 311 : 2 m.l.t. 84 : 17 m.l.j. 123 : 5 cri. l.j. 288, it was held that a district judge had no jurisdiction to order further enquiry by a district munsif in regard to a matter dealt with by him under section 195, criminal procedure code. it was held that such jurisdiction was not inherent because not incidental to the proper exercise of the powers given to the district court by the section, nor were they given by any section of the civil or criminal procedure code.2. though that was in a civil court and the present case arose in a criminal court, we think the same reasoning must be held applicable. the power to take, or call for, further evidence given by section 428, criminal procedure code, is expressly limited to appeals under that chapter i.e., under chapter xxxi of the code. section 195 is not part of that chapter, nor does the section itself give any power to call for further evidence.3. we must, therefore, hold that the district magistrate had no power to make the order calling for further evidence.4. we set aside the order and direct the district magistrate to restore the case to his file and deal with it according to law.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. in the case of Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachala Padayachi 30 M.k 311 : 2 M.L.T. 84 : 17 M.L.J. 123 : 5 Cri. L.J. 288, it was held that a District Judge had no jurisdiction to order further enquiry by a District Munsif in regard to a matter dealt with by him under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that such jurisdiction was not inherent because not incidental to the proper exercise of the powers given to the District Court by the section, nor were they given by any section of the Civil or Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Though that was in a Civil Court and the present case arose in a Criminal Court, we think the same reasoning must be held applicable. The power to take, or call for, further evidence given by Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, is expressly limited to appeals under that Chapter i.e., under Chapter XXXI of the Code. Section 195 is not part of that Chapter, nor does the section itself give any power to call for further evidence.

3. We must, therefore, hold that the District Magistrate had no power to make the order calling for further evidence.

4. We set aside the order and direct the District Magistrate to restore the case to his file and deal with it according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial