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: Angamuthu Vanathrian

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 29, 1912
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/819690
CiteSignal

Log in to get a daily email when new judgments cite this order.

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Angamuthu Vanathrian

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Karamdi
Reported In
16Ind.Cas.522; (1912)23MLJ732
Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Log in to unlock AI Studio

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 438 - illegality of sessions judge's order--district magistrate's power to report to high court. - ordermiller, j.1. it has been held by all the high courts that section 438 of the criminal procedure code does not warrant a district magistrate in reporting to the high court the proceedings of a court of session. vide emperor v. jamna bai 2 cri.l.j. 515 and queen-empress v. karamdi 23 c.k 250. there is an unreported case in the bombay high court to the same effect and in this court: high court proceedings, dated 21st september 1895, no. 443.2. there is no material difference between the words of section 438 in the present code and those of the same section in the former code of 1882.3. the district magistrate, if he considers the sessions judge's order illegal, should move the public prosecutor to bring it before this court.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Miller, J.

1. It has been held by all the High Courts that Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not warrant a District Magistrate in reporting to the High Court the proceedings of a Court of Session. Vide Emperor v. Jamna Bai 2 Cri.L.J. 515 and Queen-Empress v. Karamdi 23 C.k 250. There is an unreported case in the Bombay High Court to the same effect and in this Court: High Court Proceedings, dated 21st September 1895, No. 443.

2. There is no material difference between the words of Section 438 in the present Code and those of the same section in the former Code of 1882.

3. The District Magistrate, if he considers the Sessions Judge's order illegal, should move the Public Prosecutor to bring it before this Court.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial