Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-04-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad292
Kernan, J.1. The appellant, Ramasami Nayak, was convicted before the Sessions Judge of Madura of making a false charge (Section 211, Indian Penal Code) of theft of a vatti (bowl) against Subbammal. He appealed to this Court on four grounds, and his appeal was dismissed on all the grounds except the fourth by Mr. Justice HUTCHINS, who directed the appeal on that ground to be heard by two Judges.2. The fourth ground is that the appellant was entitled to have his evidence in support of the charge of theft considered by the Magistrate before sanction was given for his prosecution. To understand the value of this objection it must be recollected that the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 101, provides that, except as thereafter provided, Magistrates may take cognizance of any offence--(a) on receiving a complaint, (b) on Police reports, (c) on information.3. Section 195 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences therein mentioned, and amongst others, an offence under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-12-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad314
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Brandt, J.1. An appeal from the Subordinate Judge ordinarily lies to the District Judge : the Subordinate Judge's Court is therefore subordinate to the District Court, and the Subordinate Judge's Court standing in that relation to the District Court, the District Judge has jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to revoke or grant a sanction granted or refused by the Subordinate Judge.2. There was material on which the District Court could determine whether there was ground for inquiry.3. The application is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-29-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad348
Brandt, J.1. In this case four persons have been convicted by a Second-class Magistrate under Clauses (c) and (d), Section 821 of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, the first of having falsely personated another and in such assumed character presented a document for registration, and the second, third, and fourth with having abetted such false personation. The District Magistrate submits that an offence falling under that section is not cognizable by a Second-class Magistrate. I do not agree in that opinion. Section 29* of the Criminal Procedure Code, to which the Magistrate has adverted, enacts, in its first clause, that any offence under any special law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court. The proviso that no Magistrate of the second class shall try any such offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, is a proviso to the next clause which deals with laws in which no Court is mentioned.2. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-18-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad356
Hutchins, J.1. The only point raised in this case is that a Magistrate, before acquitting an accused person under Section 247 for the complainant's default of appearance, is bound to wait till his Court is about to close for the day. I can see no foundation for this contention. The case was called on at 1-30, and it is admitted that the complainant was not present. Thereupon, the Magistrate was bound by Section 247 to acquit the accused, 'unless for some reason he thought proper to adjourn the hearing to some other day, 'or to a later hour on the same day.2. I see nothing illegal in his acquitting the accused at once, and accordingly decline to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-02-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad436
Brandt, J.1. The petitioner, Kannaya Raja Pandya Nayak, a zamindar, was convicted by the First-class Joint Magistrate, Madura District, of having intentionally omitted to furnish to a public servant, as such, certain information which he was legally bound to furnish, an offence punishable under Section 176, Indian Penal Code.2. The information that the zamindar was, as it is found, bound to furnish was the resort to a village, in which the zamindar owns land, of one Vellayan who has been found to have been 'a proclaimed offender,' this information being required by Section 45, Criminal Procedure Code, to be given by the owner or occupier of land, and the zamindar as such owner being under a legal obligation to furnish such information to the police.3. It is contended for the petitioner that it was not proved that Vellayan was a proclaimed offender within the meaning of the words used in the section of the Criminal Procedure Code above quoted.4. Both the Magistrate in the first instance...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-30-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad454
Kernan, J.1. The accused, six in number, were charged with rioting, Section 147, Indian Penal Code. This is a warrant case triable under Chapter XXI, Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Magistrate took the evidence of complainant and his witnesses, and by his order, dated 10th September 1883, recorded that the charge of rioting was not proved, and discharged the accused under Section 253.3. The Sessions Judge ordered (the date does not appear) under Section 437 further inquiry.4. The Magistrate took the case on his file again, and, on notice to the parties, the case was posted for the 17th of December 1883. The complainant then gave in a list of witnesses to be summoned. The accused appeared in Court, and the case was adjourned to the 21st of December, and summonses issued to the witnesses. The further inquiry appears to have been held on the 26th of December 1883. In his judgment of that date the Magistrate finds that there was no proof whatever against the accused, Nos. 2 to 5, and it was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jul-14-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad460
1. Arunachala Muppan occupied a house and site in the village of Sevalpatti and on 21st November 1883 sold them by a registered sale-deed to the Rev. J. B. Trincal who purchased them for the purpose of erecting a church on the site.2. Subba Nayak, zamindar of Sevalpatti thereupon filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Sriviliputtur against the Rev. J. B. Trincal, claiming the recovery of the site on the ground that Arunachala Muppan held it from him on a service tenure and had no transferable interest. He also applied for the issue of an ad interim injunction restraining the purchaser from erecting a church pending the decision of the suit. The Munsif granted the injunction, but on the 15th March the District Judge, on appeal, finding that the priest was in possession, dissolved it. At the same time the judge intimated that, if in the result the claim was decreed, the priest would be bound to remove any erection he might place on the land and to restore the site to the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-14-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad557
Hutchins, J.1. The facts alleged against the accused are that at night they forcibly entered the house of a deceased person and removed his property with the dishonest intention of depriving the complainant's sister and her son of the share to which they were entitled under the Muhammadan law. The house, it is stated, was being guarded by watchmen, some of whom were sent by the complainant's sister, while others had been appointed by the first and second accused on behalf of their daughters, who are admittedly entitled to a share.2. The original charge was one of dacoity. The Deputy Magistrate split it up and convicted the accused of rioting, using criminal force, and misappropriating the property of a deceased person. In appeal the Sessions Court reversed this conviction, holding that the offence committed, if any amounted to dacoity, but that, the facts being incredible, there was no occasion to order a committal.3. The complainant thereupon lodged a fresh charge of dacoity before an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-15-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad560
Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The facts are stated by the referring officer. The offence for which the Joint Magistrate purported to give sanction under Section 195 was perjury committed before the Second-class Magistrate who did not give, nor was b.e applied to for, sanction, though, he stated, he disbelieved the witness.2. The Joint Magistrate on reading the calendar and apparently without reading the evidence or forming an opinion from it whether the witness had committed perjury and without any application for the purpose purported to give sanction to prosecute the witness.3. The Joint Magistrate when he granted sanction was not sitting as a Court to hear the case in any stage of it, nor was any application before him.4. Sanction should not be given by any Court without first examining the evidence. The object of giving the power to sanction is to secure, as far as possible, that no man shall be prosecuted unless the Court hearing the case or a superior Court is satisfied that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-19-1884
Reported in : (1883)ILR7Mad563
Hutchins, J.1. The decision of Mr. Justice Tyrrell in Ishri v. Bakshi I.L.R. 6 All. 96 seems correct, although his reasons have not been fully-stated. Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code defines a complaint to mean 'the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this code, that some person has committed an offence.' Here the accusation was made to a police officer who took action and laid the matter before the Magistrate with a charge sheet.There was no complaint as defined by the Code, and the case not having been instituted upon complaint,' the Magistrate had no power to award compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The award of compensation is accordingly quashed and the 5 rupees must be refunded to the person from whom it was levied....
Tag this Judgment!