Skip to content


In Re: Narella Satyanarayanamurthi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad572; (1943)1MLJ315
AppellantIn Re: Narella Satyanarayanamurthi
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. .....to convict the accused.2. section 7 (1) (2) says that,no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence...it would follow that before a person can be tried for any offence punishable under that sub-section, there must be a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence. this means that unless a report is filed disclosing facts which constitute a particular offence, the court is not entitled to frame a charge and try an accused for that offence. the argument of the learned public prosecutor is that since a number of offences punishable under the section were disclosed by the report, the magistrate had cognizance under that section and having cognizance, could try the accused.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. A report or charge sheet was filed by the Sub-Inspector of Chirala in The Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ongole in which several offences punishable under Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act were disclosed. The warrant procedure was adopted, but a charge was framed with regard to an offence not mentioned in the charge sheet. Upon that offence being proved to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the accused was convicted. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Guntur. The question is whether in view of the second clause of Section 7 (1) of the Act, the trial Court had jurisdiction to convict the accused.

2. Section 7 (1) (2) says that,

No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence...

It would follow that before a person can be tried for any offence punishable under that sub-section, there must be a report in writing of facts which constitute such offence. This means that unless a report is filed disclosing facts which constitute a particular offence, the Court is not entitled to frame a charge and try an accused for that offence. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor is that since a number of offences punishable under the section were disclosed by the report, the Magistrate had cognizance under that section and having cognizance, could try the accused in any charge disclosed by the evidence, although it might not have been constituted from the facts set out in the report. I find it difficult to accept that argument. Many offences punishable under Section 7 may be committed; but no Magistrate can take cognizance of any one of those offences unless that particular offence is constituted by the facts set out in the Sub-Inspector's report. It seems to me to follow that as this particular offence of compelling shop-keepers to close their shops was not indicated in the charge sheet, the Court was not at liberty to try the accused for that particular offence. The acceptance of the learned Public Prosecutor's argument would mean that a report disclosing an offence of which an accused person may be completely innocent could be used as a basis for his conviction of an offence regarding which there had been no report at all--which would lead to the evasion of the safeguard that the Legislature thought necessary to impose that a person should not be tried for an offence unless there was a report by a police officer of a certain rank setting out the facts which constitute that particular offence.

3. The petition is allowed and the conviction of the accused set aside. His bail bond will be cancelled.


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