Chennai Court May 1931 Judgments
Kalastri Mudali and anr. Vs. Rex
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)61MLJ686
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Judge, Salem, complaining against him under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, for offences under Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. 2. On 15th November, 1929, a private party applieed to the District Munsif, Salem, praying that he would lodge a complaint under Section 476. This was dismissed on 27th February, 1930 and there has been no appeal.3. Then on the same day 27th February, 1930, another petition was put in, and ultimately dismissed. On appeal from that dismissal the District Judge, Salem, has complained under Section 476.4. The question is whether the petition of 27th February and the consequent appeal were competent after the petition of November was dismissed.5. This opens up a field which is occupied by two schools of thought. There are those who hold that apart from his statutory powers and limitations a Magistrate is circumscribed by the maxim 'nemo bis vexari' and he cannot expose an accused ...
Tag this Judgment!Sengoda Goundan and anr. Vs. Vayyapuri Goundan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad129; 136Ind.Cas.48; (1931)61MLJ684
Jackson, J.1. The petitioners seek to revise the order of the District judge, Salem, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, complaining against them for abetting a forgery. The learned Judge has overlooked Govinda Aiyar v. Rex I.L.R. (1919) 42 M. 540 : 36 M.L.J. 448 which confines Section 476 to the exact offences referred to in Section 195, so that offences in Section 195(1)(c) must be offences 'alleged to have been committed by a party'. The amendment of these sections in 1923 has not affected the reasoning adopted by the Full Bench, and so far as this province is concerned that ruling constitutes the binding law. Anybody can complain against an abettor of the offences in Section 195(1)(c) and there is no question of the Court itself complaining qua Court under Section 476. Of course there is nothing to prevent the presiding officer himself complaining if he likes, as pointed out in Emperor v. Mukund A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 510 only then Section 200(a-a) will not apply. In Bombay it ha...
Tag this Judgment!Kalastri Mudali and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Mad130; 136Ind.Cas.313
Jackson, J.1. The petitioner seeks to revise the order of the District Judge, Salem, complaining against him under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, for offences under Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code.2. On 15th November 1929, a private party applied to the District Munsif, Salem, praying that he would lodge a complaint under Section 476. This was dismissed on 27th February, 1930 and there has been no appeal.3. Then on the same day 27th February, 1930, another petition was put in, and ultimately dismissed. On appeal from that dismissal the District Judge, Salem, has complained under Section 476.4. The question is whether the petition of 27th February and the consequent appeal were competent after the petition, of November was dismissed.5. This opens up a field which is occupied by two schools of thought. There are those who hold that apart from his statutory powers and limitations a Magistrate is circumscribed by the maxim 'nemo bis vexari' and he cannot expose an accused pe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›