Skip to content


Krishna Reddi and ors. Vs. King-emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ102
AppellantKrishna Reddi and ors.
RespondentKing-emperor
Cases ReferredRama Aiyar v. Venkatachella Padayachi I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. .....further inquiry by a district munsif in regard to a matter dealt with by him under section 195, criminal procedure code. it was held that such jurisdiction was not inherent, because not incidental to the proper exercise of the powers given to the district court by the section, nor were they given by any section of the civil or crimnal procedure codes. though that was in a civil court and the present case arose in a criminal court, we think the same reasoning must be held applicable. the power to take, or call for, further evidence, given by section 428, criminal procedure code, is expressly limited to appeals under that chapter, i.e., under chapter 31 of the code. section 195 is not part of that chapter, nor does the section itself give any power to call for further evidence.2. we.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In the case of Rama Aiyar v. Venkatachella Padayachi I.L.R. (1907) M. 311 it was held that a District Judge had no jurisdiction to order further inquiry by a District Munsif in regard to a matter dealt with by him under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. It was held that such jurisdiction was not inherent, because not incidental to the proper exercise of the powers given to the District Court by the section, nor were they given by any section of the Civil or crimnal Procedure Codes. Though that was in a Civil Court and the present case arose in a Criminal Court, we think the same reasoning must be held applicable. The power to take, or call for, further evidence, given by Section 428, Criminal Procedure Code, is expressly limited to appeals under that chapter, i.e., under Chapter 31 of the Code. Section 195 is not part of that chapter, nor does the section itself give any power to call for further evidence.

2. We must, therefore, hold that the District Magistrate had no power to make the order calling for further evidence. We set aside the order and direct the District Magistrate to restore the case to his file and deal with it according to law.


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