Skip to content


Mahajanam Venkatrayar Vs. Kodi Venkatrayar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1922Mad223; 66Ind.Cas.72; (1921)41MLJ398
AppellantMahajanam Venkatrayar
RespondentKodi Venkatrayar and ors.
Cases ReferredHet Ram v. Ganga Sahai and Ors. I.L.
Excerpt:
- order1. in this case a compensation order under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure is attacked as illegal.2. it is argued that the facts appearing in evidence constitute an offence under section 467 of the indian penal code, which is triable only by a sessions court, and that, in consequence the magistrate'had no jurisdiction to act under section 250 of the code of criminal procedure. in cur opinion the offence disclosed was one under section 467 but the magistrate undoubtedly regarded it as one under section 465 of the indian penal code (which he had jurisdiction to try) and specifically refers to the latter section in his order. does the former fact affect the legality of his order of compensation? we think not. the magistrate undoubtedly proceeded under chapter 21 of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In this case a compensation order under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attacked as illegal.

2. It is argued that the facts appearing in evidence constitute an offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code, which is triable only by a Sessions Court, and that, in consequence the Magistrate'had no jurisdiction to act under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In cur opinion the offence disclosed was one under Section 467 but the Magistrate undoubtedly regarded it as one under Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code (which he had jurisdiction to try) and specifically refers to the latter section in his order. Does the former fact affect the legality of his order of compensation? We think not. The Magistrate undoubtedly proceeded under Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not under Chapter 18; and King Emperor v. Ayyan and Vellayyappa Udayan I.L.R(1900) . Mad. 675 is clear authority for holding that if the case ha'd ended in a conviction, that conviction would not be illegal merely because the offence committed really fell under a more erious section arid was not one which the Magistrate was competent to try. Applying the line of reasoning adopted in that judgment to the present case, we think it must be held that as the Magistrate was not proceeding illegally in trying the accused for the lesser offence, he was not acting illegally in awarding compensation when he found the accusation to be frivolous or vexatious. Two cases have been cited for petitioner. Of these, Emperor v. Chhabha Dolson 19 Bom. L.R. 60 is easily distinguishable, for in that case, the Magistrate was certainly acting under Chapter 18 and passed his order of dis-charge under Section 209. The other, Het Ram v. Ganga Sahai and Ors. I.L.R(1918) . All. 615 is the decision of a single Judge and the judgment leaves it doubtful which offence the Magistrate conceived himself to be enquiring into. We do not think there are any grounds for interference and we dismiss this petition.


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