Skip to content


Athangarayan Vs. Gopalan Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.1056
AppellantAthangarayan
RespondentGopalan Chetty
Cases ReferredSee Kandasami Chetty v. Soli Gounden
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 197 - charge of extortion against a village magistrate not acting in his judicial capacity--sanction--high court--revision. - order1. the village magistrate was not acting as a judge when the alleged extortion was committed. see kandasami chetty v. soli gounden 23 m. 540.2. no sanction was, therefore, necessary. the orders of the courts below requiring sanction are the cause of the delay that has occurred since the offence was committed, and we, therefore, cannot refuse to interfere on the ground that the judge's order was passed so long ago as february 1903. we set aside the order of the sub-magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction, and we direct him to restore the case (c.c. no. 415 of 1902) to his file and to dispose of it according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The Village Magistrate was not acting as a Judge when the alleged extortion was committed. See Kandasami Chetty v. Soli Gounden 23 M. 540.

2. No sanction was, therefore, necessary. The orders of the Courts below requiring sanction are the cause of the delay that has occurred since the offence was committed, and we, therefore, cannot refuse to interfere on the ground that the Judge's order was passed so long ago as February 1903. We set aside the order of the Sub-Magistrate dismissing the complaint for want of sanction, and we direct him to restore the case (C.C. No. 415 of 1902) to his file and to dispose of it according to law.


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