Skip to content


Kuppu Odayar Vs. Poomalai Goundan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad896; (1924)47MLJ439
AppellantKuppu Odayar
RespondentPoomalai Goundan
Cases ReferredSwaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu
Excerpt:
- .....judge of this court whose attention does not seem to have been drawn to swaminatha mudaliar v. gopalakrishna naidu 28 indcas 160 thought it incumbent on him to interfere in revision with an expired order. the cases quoted by him do not in my opinion support his view.4. in ramanadhan chetti v. murugappa chetti i.l.r. (1900) m 45 the fact that the order had ceased to be in force does not appear to have been brought to notice when the high court heard the criminal revision case and in govinda chetti v. perumal chetty (1913) 38 m 489 there was in fact one day more for the order to remain in force. it seems to me a waste of time to adjudicate upon matters which have no practical effect. i therefore dismiss the criminal revision petition.5. it will be sufficient to communicate to the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Spencer, J.

1. The order passed by the District Magistrate.under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, on 23rd September, 1923, has expired.

2. It is therefore unnecessary to adjudicate upon the merits of the order, and it would be superfluous to annul an order which has long ceased to be in force, vide Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu 28 IndCas 160.

3. Nevertheless it has been strongly urged that the District Magistrate should not have issued an order under Section 144 and should not have discharged the Sub-divisional Magistrate's order under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, without finding that there was a danger of a breach of the peace even if the Goundans continued to be bound over to keep the peace. In Muthukumaraswami Nadar v. Muhammad Rowther (1921) 42 MLJ 352 a learned Judge of this Court whose attention does not seem to have been drawn to Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu 28 IndCas 160 thought it incumbent on him to interfere in revision with an expired order. The cases quoted by him do not in my opinion support his view.

4. In Ramanadhan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti I.L.R. (1900) M 45 the fact that the order had ceased to be in force does not appear to have been brought to notice when the High Court heard the Criminal Revision Case and in Govinda Chetti v. Perumal Chetty (1913) 38 M 489 there was in fact one day more for the order to remain in force. It seems to me a waste of time to adjudicate upon matters which have no practical effect. I therefore dismiss the Criminal Revision Petition.

5. It will be sufficient to communicate to the District Magistrate for his future guidance a copy of the judgment of Ayling, J. in Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Gopalakrishna Naidu 30 IndCas 144 as representing the proper course to be adopted by a Magistrate in dealing with cases in which his powers under Section 144 are repeatedly invoked.


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