Skip to content


Thaman Chetti Vs. Alagiri Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR14Mad399
AppellantThaman Chetti
RespondentAlagiri Chetti
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, sections 17, 528. - - but the acting district magistrate being of opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for the transfer, but that on the contrary there were very good grounds against it, withdrew the case from the file of the taluk magistrate and transferred it back to that of the kodaikanal sub-magistrate......transferred a complaint of a coffee theft from the second-class magistrate of kodaikanal to the taluk magistrate of periaculam. but the acting district magistrate being of opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for the transfer, but that on the contrary there were very good grounds against it, withdrew the case from the file of the taluk magistrate and transferred it back to that of the kodaikanal sub-magistrate. it is contended that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the retransfer under section 528, criminal procedure code.2. we are, however, of opinion that a magistrate, who is subordinate to a sub-division magistrate, is also subordinate to the district magistrate within the meaning of section 528. neither section 17, which declares such magistrate to be.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the Acting Joint Magistrate of Madura transferred a complaint of a coffee theft from the Second-class Magistrate of Kodaikanal to the Taluk Magistrate of Periaculam. But the Acting District Magistrate being of opinion that there were no sufficient grounds for the transfer, but that on the contrary there were very good grounds against it, withdrew the case from the file of the Taluk Magistrate and transferred it back to that of the Kodaikanal Sub-Magistrate. It is contended that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order the retransfer under Section 528, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. We are, however, of opinion that a Magistrate, who is subordinate to a Sub-Division Magistrate, is also subordinate to the District Magistrate within the meaning of Section 528. Neither Section 17, which declares such Magistrate to be subject only to the general control of the District Magistrate, nor Schedule III which specifies the ordinary powers of a District Magistrate, can be so construed as to take away the special power conferred by Section 528. We decline to interfere and dismiss this petition.


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