Skip to content


The Public Prosecutor Vs. Sankaralinga Moopan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1919)37MLJ92
AppellantThe Public Prosecutor
RespondentSankaralinga Moopan
Excerpt:
- 1. we cannot agree with the sub-divisional magistrate that the words 'other person duly authorised as aforesaid ' in section 98(2) of local board's act refer only to' some person, duly authorised by him in that behalf ' mentioned in section 98(1), for we think that the use of the single word ' other ' precludes this view, which would require the word 'any' or 'such other' to support it. in our opinion there must be a separate authorization under each clause of the section, and the words ' as aforesaid ' in clause 2 must be read as meaning 'by him in that behalf.' in this view the notice issued by the union chairman was valid, as authority had been given to him ex. c.s. 33 of the act does not restrict specific delegations allowed by other sections of the act, and there is no reason to read.....
Judgment:

1. We cannot agree with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the words 'other person duly authorised as aforesaid ' in Section 98(2) of Local Board's Act refer only to' some person, duly authorised by him in that behalf ' mentioned in Section 98(1), for we think that the use of the single word ' other ' precludes this view, which would require the word 'any' or 'such other' to support it. In our opinion there must be a separate authorization under each clause of the section, and the words ' as aforesaid ' in Clause 2 must be read as meaning 'by him in that behalf.' In this view the notice issued by the union chairman was valid, as authority had been given to him Ex. C.S. 33 of the Act does not restrict specific delegations allowed by other sections of the Act, and there is no reason to read the words 'other person' as meaning Vice-President alone.

2. The case against accused being a summons case no charge was necessary, and as accused was represented by a vakil he must have been aware of the charge against him, and could not have been prejudiced by the Magistrate's omission to explain it to him.

3. We set aside the order of acquittal and confirm the conviction and sentence of the Sub-Magistrate.


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