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.

Public Prosecutor Vs. Mari Mudali and ors.

Public Prosecutor vs Mari Mudali and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 04, 1923
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/821147

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
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Mari Mudali and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1924Mad730

Excerpt

- krishnan, j.1. this is an appeal by the government against the acquittal of the accused of an offence, under section 245, criminal procedure code by the sub-magistrate of perundurai. the acquittal is based on the ground that no sanction had been produced under section 195, criminal procedure code, from the district munsif, the complainant being the village munsif whose superior is the district munsif. the complaint that he brought forward against the accused was for an offence under section 183, indian penal code. the magistrate overlooked the fact that under section 195, criminal procedure code, sanction is not necessary, when as here the public servant against whom the offence has been committed is himself the complainant. in such cases as that, no sanction is necessary at all, under section 195 sub-section (1) clause (a).2. an argument has been put forward by the learned vakil for the accused, with reference to section 1 of the criminal procedure code, that section says inter alia that nothing contained in the criminal procedure code shall apply to heads of villages in the presidency of fort st. george. this is sought to be read, as meaning that the village magistrates could not complain or be tried under the code, because this section excludes the applicability of the code to heads of villages. obviously this is not the meaning of the provision at all. it simply means that in his official capacity, as village magistrate, that is in the proceedings he takes as village magistrate, he is not governed by the criminal procedure code. this has nothing to do with his coming forward in any criminal case as a complainant, as in this case he has done.3. the order of acquittal must be set aside and case sent back to the 2nd class magistrate, perundurai, for disposal according to law.

Full Judgment

Krishnan, J.

1. This is an appeal by the Government against the acquittal of the accused of an offence, under Section 245, Criminal Procedure Code by the Sub-Magistrate of Perundurai. The acquittal is based on the ground that no sanction had been produced under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, from the District Munsif, the complainant being the Village Munsif whose superior is the District Munsif. The complaint that he brought forward against the accused was for an offence under Section 183, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate overlooked the fact that under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, sanction is not necessary, when as here the public servant against whom the offence has been committed is himself the complainant. In such cases as that, no sanction is necessary at all, under Section 195 Sub-section (1) Clause (a).

2. An argument has been put forward by the learned Vakil for the accused, with reference to Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, That Section says inter alia that nothing contained in the Criminal Procedure Code shall apply to heads of villages in the Presidency of Fort St. George. This is sought to be read, as meaning that the Village Magistrates could not complain or be tried under the Code, because this Section excludes the applicability of the Code to heads of villages. Obviously this is not the meaning of the provision at all. It simply means that in his official capacity, as Village Magistrate, that is in the proceedings he takes as village Magistrate, he is not governed by the Criminal Procedure Code. This has nothing to do with his coming forward in any criminal case as a complainant, as in this case he has done.

3. The order of acquittal must be set aside and case sent back to the 2nd Class Magistrate, Perundurai, for disposal according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial