Skip to content


Devendra Marrappa Jingowda Vs. Shettappa Hooleppa Ventagatti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revisional Application No. 24 of 1923
Judge
Reported inAIR1923Bom264; (1923)25BOMLR251
AppellantDevendra Marrappa Jingowda
RespondentShettappa Hooleppa Ventagatti
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 422 and 537 - appeal-notice to district magistrate-want of notice-complainant cannot apply on ground of absence of notice-high court-revision.; where the lower court of appeal decides an appeal preferred by the accused and acquits him without notice to the district magistrate, the high court will not interfere in revision at the instance of the complainant, especially where the district magistrate has raised no objection to the procedure. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he..........class magistrate of khandesh for having committed of offences under sections 352 and 504, indian penal code. the magistrate discharged the accused nos. 2 and 3, and after carefully considering the evidence convicted accused no. 1 under sections 352 and 504, indian penal code, and ordered him to pay a fine of rs. 30. in appeal the sub-divisional magistrate reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. we are told that no notice was sent by the appellate court to the district magistrate as should have been done under section 422, criminal procedure code. this no doubt was an irregularity, and had the district magistrate moved in the matter, we should certainly have interfered, as was done by this court in emperor v. shivlingappa, basappa : air1923bom74 ; bat it is different matter.....
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an application in revision made by the complainant against an order of acquittal. The three accused were charged before the Third Class Magistrate of Khandesh for having committed of offences under Sections 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate discharged the accused Nos. 2 and 3, and after carefully considering the evidence convicted accused No. 1 under Sections 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code, and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 30. In appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. We are told that no notice was sent by the appellate Court to the District Magistrate as should have been done under Section 422, Criminal Procedure Code. This no doubt was an irregularity, and had the District Magistrate moved in the matter, we should certainly have interfered, as was done by this Court in Emperor v. Shivlingappa, Basappa : AIR1923Bom74 ; bat it is different matter when we are asked by the complainant to interfere and no objection has been raised by the District Magistrate to the proceedings of the appellate Court. Therefore we decline to pass any order on this application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //