Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Seshadri Ayyangar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad383
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentSeshadri Ayyangar
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, section 487--judicial proceedings. - .....on the merits we think that it is impossible to say that an order whether original or appellate granting or refusing or revoking sanction under section 195, criminal procedure code, is not a 'judicial proceeding' as defined in section 4 of the act, and looking to the wide terms 'brought under his notice' used in section 487, we are of opinion that the magistrate who declined to revoke the sanction was precluded from himself trying the case.3. the sessions judge was, therefore, right in ordering a new trial. we dismiss this appeal
Judgment:

1. The order of the High Court, dated 28th January 1896, on which the appellant relies, was passed mainly on the ground that there had been undue delay in making the application for transfer. Section 487, Criminal Procedure Code, was not referred to in the petition then before the High Court, nor in the order of the High Court, and was apparently rot considered.

2. On the merits we think that it is impossible to say that an order whether original or appellate granting or refusing or revoking sanction under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, is not a 'Judicial proceeding' as defined in Section 4 of the Act, and looking to the wide terms 'brought under his notice' used in Section 487, we are of opinion that the Magistrate who declined to revoke the sanction was precluded from himself trying the case.

3. The Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in ordering a new trial. We dismiss this appeal


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