Skip to content


Karuppana Nadan Vs. Chairman, Madura Municipality - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR21Mad246
AppellantKaruppana Nadan
RespondentChairman, Madura Municipality
Cases Referred and Damri Thakur v. Bhowani Sahoo I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code--act x of 1882, sections 16, 350--bench of magistrates--district municipalities act (madras)--act iv of 1814, sections 263, 264. - - 1. it is not quite necessary to consider whether in the absence of a resolution passed by the municipal council the accused could have been proceeded against under section 264 of the district municipalities act, 1884. the accused was clearly punishable under section 263 if, as alleged, he erected the fence in the lane without the license required by the law. 194 are clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as in the present case the magistrates who decided it had attended throughout the trial......that two out of the seven magistrates (who constituted the bench that sat during part of the trial) did not attend on the day when the accused was convicted by the five magistrates who were present then does not affect the legality of the conviction. the cases of hardwar sing v. khega ojha i.l.r. 20 cal. 870 and damri thakur v. bhowani sahoo i.l.r. 23 cal. 194 are clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as in the present case the magistrates who decided it had attended throughout the trial. we must, therefore, set aside the order of the deputy magistrate acquitting the accused and direct the magistrate to rehear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.
Judgment:

1. It is not quite necessary to consider whether in the absence of a resolution passed by the Municipal Council the accused could have been proceeded against under Section 264 of the District Municipalities Act, 1884. The accused was clearly punishable under Section 263 if, as alleged, he erected the fence in the lane without the license required by the law. The circumstance that two out of the seven Magistrates (who constituted the bench that sat during part of the trial) did not attend on the day when the accused was convicted by the five Magistrates who were present then does not affect the legality of the conviction. The cases of Hardwar Sing v. Khega Ojha I.L.R. 20 Cal. 870 and Damri Thakur v. Bhowani Sahoo I.L.R. 23 Cal. 194 are clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as in the present case the Magistrates who decided it had attended throughout the trial. We must, therefore, set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate acquitting the accused and direct the Magistrate to rehear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.


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