Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

In Re: Angamuthu Vanathrian

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

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 438 - Illegality of Sessions Judge's order--District Magistrate's power to report to High Court. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Angamuthu Vanathrian

Legal References

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

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.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Angamuthu Vanathrian vs Same Subject Civil Same Judge Miller, J.
Civil

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales