Skip to content


In Re: Sankara Pillai Alias Sankaranarayana Pillay - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ197
AppellantIn Re: Sankara Pillai Alias Sankaranarayana Pillay
Excerpt:
- - 2. we are of opinion that the course adopted was not illegal or improper and that, under section 367 of the criminal procedure code, it is not necessary that the presiding officer of the court who wrote the judgment should be the same person as the presiding officer who is required to date, sign and pronounce it in open court moreover, we are clearly of opinion that even if it was an irregularity it did not prejudice the accused......that this is illegal and that, inasmuch as the judgment and sentence were not delivered in open court by the magistrate who heard the case and wrote the judgment, the accused should have been retried.2. we are of opinion that the course adopted was not illegal or improper and that, under section 367 of the criminal procedure code, it is not necessary that the presiding officer of the court who wrote the judgment should be the same person as the presiding officer who is required to date, sign and pronounce it in open court moreover, we are clearly of opinion that even if it was an irregularity it did not prejudice the accused. see high court proceedings, dated 28th august 1879, no. 1351, in 2 weir p. 4387.3. it was next argued that the evidence did not justify the conviction of.....
Judgment:

1. It appears from the explanation given and also from the diary that the case was adjourned for judgment on the 5th August. Afterwards, and before the judgment was written, an application was made to call another witness for the defence. No order was made upon that application and the judgment was written on the 14th. The Magistrate, before it was delivered, left, and another Magistrate was appointed in his place who read out his predecessor's judgment and sentence and signed and dated it in open court on the 19th August. It is contended that this is illegal and that, inasmuch as the judgment and sentence were not delivered in open court by the Magistrate who heard the case and wrote the judgment, the accused should have been retried.

2. We are of opinion that the course adopted was not illegal or improper and that, under Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it is not necessary that the presiding officer of the court who wrote the judgment should be the same person as the presiding officer who is required to date, sign and pronounce it in open court Moreover, we are clearly of opinion that even if it was an irregularity it did not prejudice the accused. See High Court Proceedings, dated 28th August 1879, No. 1351, in 2 Weir p. 4387.

3. It was next argued that the evidence did not justify the conviction of the accused, but on this point there can be no doubt that the conviction was correct.

4. We dismiss the criminal revision petition.


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