Pichai Rowthan Vs. Emperor

Pichai Rowthan vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 31, 1912

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/816517

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/816517
Court: Chennai
Judge: Sadasiva Aiyar, J.
Decided On: Oct 31, 1912
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1893), Section 476 - Action under section--When may be taken. -

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pichai Rowthan

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred: Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor
Reported In: 17Ind.Cas.569

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1893), section 476 - action under section--when may be taken. - ordersadasiva aiyar, j.1. reading the deposition of the petitioner as a whole, i cannot say that the magistrate's action requires interference of this court under its revisional powers which are not exercised as matter of course.2. as regards the delay of 5 days in taking action under section 476, criminal procedure code, the full bench case in aiyakannu pillai v. emperor 4 m.l.t. 404 : 19 m.l.j. 42 does not decide that the action should be taken invariably in the course of the judicial proceeding or at its conclusion. if it is taken within reasonable promptitude, that is, so shortly after the conclusion of the proceedings as to make it practically the continuation of the same proceeding, it will suffice. i hold that the action taken by the magistrate in this case was prompt enough.3. the petition is rejected.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. Reading the deposition of the petitioner as a whole, I cannot say that the Magistrate's action requires interference of this Court under its revisional powers which are not exercised as matter of course.

2. As regards the delay of 5 days in taking action under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, the Full Bench case in Aiyakannu Pillai v. Emperor 4 M.L.T. 404 : 19 M.L.J. 42 does not decide that the action should be taken invariably in the course of the judicial proceeding or at its conclusion. If it is taken within reasonable promptitude, that is, so shortly after the conclusion of the proceedings as to make it practically the continuation of the same proceeding, it will suffice. I hold that the action taken by the Magistrate in this case was prompt enough.

3. The petition is rejected.

Same Parties Pichai Rowthan vs Emperor Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

Miscellaneous