Skip to content


In Re: S.K.V. Krishnavatharam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Mad117; (1947)2MLJ191
AppellantIn Re: S.K.V. Krishnavatharam
Excerpt:
- - in his order dated 23rd december, 1946, dismissing the petition the district magistrate says that as his ex parte order was only two weeks-old, and, as it was passed with a view to maintain law and order and ensure public peace and tranquillity, he considered it unsafe to rescind the order at that stage either wholly or even so far as it concerned a single respondent......the immediate vicinity. on 16th december, 1946, an application was made by the petitioner to the district magistrate to rescind the order after holding an enquiry, and it is stated by mr. v.v. srinivasa ayyangar for the petitioner that the petitioner had then at hand 8 witnesses to be examined. the district magistrate refused to examine any witnesses and dismissed the petition. in his order dated 23rd december, 1946, dismissing the petition the district magistrate says that as his ex parte order was only two weeks-old, and, as it was passed with a view to maintain law and order and ensure public peace and tranquillity, he considered it unsafe to rescind the order at that stage either wholly or even so far as it concerned a single respondent. he proceeded to observe that it would be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Yahya Ali, J.

1. The petitioner is the 45th respondenfin M.C. No. 11 of 1946, before the District Magistrate, West Godavari and is an advocate practising at Ellore. Along with the rest he was served with an order dated 10th December, 1946, under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code passed ex parte prohibiting him inter alia from holding meetings and processions and doing picketing and other demonstrations to incite and provoke peaceful workers employed in the various organisations in the Ellore Municipal area and in the immediate vicinity. On 16th December, 1946, an application was made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate to rescind the order after holding an enquiry, and it is stated by Mr. V.V. Srinivasa Ayyangar for the petitioner that the petitioner had then at hand 8 witnesses to be examined. The District Magistrate refused to examine any witnesses and dismissed the petition. In his order dated 23rd December, 1946, dismissing the petition the District Magistrate says that as his ex parte order was only two weeks-old, and, as it was passed with a view to maintain law and order and ensure public peace and tranquillity, he considered it unsafe to rescind the order at that stage either wholly or even so far as it concerned a single respondent. He proceeded to observe that it would be easy for the petitioner to adduce evidence to show that he merely accepted innocent briefs in his professional capacity.

2. When an application under Section 144(4), Criminal Procedure Code is made and when the petitioner offers evidence to show cause against the continuance of the ex parte order against him, it is the obvious duty of the Magistrate to hold an enquiry and he cannot 'without holding that enquiry anticipate what the nature of the evidence would be and confirm his ex parte order. The order of the District Magistrate dated 23rd December, 1946, is set aside and the District Magistrate is directed to hold an enquiry on the petition dated 16 h December, 1946. filed by the petitioner, the 45th respondent before him, after giving notice to the petitioner and affording him sufficient opportunity to show cause against the continuance of the ex parte order against him.


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