Skip to content


N. Subbayya and anr. Vs. P. Ramayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1916)ILR39Mad537
AppellantN. Subbayya and anr.
RespondentP. Ramayya
Cases ReferredHirananda Ojha v. The Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 435, 439 and 133 - revision petition to the high court against an order under section 133--order of a single judge of the high court--appeal against order, if maintainable--letters patent (24 & 25 vict., cap. 104). clause 15. - - 2. orders made under section 133 and connected sections are not excluded from the operation of section 435 and there is no good reason for treating orders passed under this chapter x which deals with public nuisances and prescribes that the procedure shall be that of a summons case, as not orders passed1 in a criminal trial within the words of section 15 of the letters-patent act......are not excluded from the operation of section 435 and there is no good reason for treating orders passed under this chapter x which deals with public nuisances and prescribes that the procedure shall be that of a summons case, as not orders passed1 in a criminal trial within the words of section 15 of the letters-patent act.3. it is argued on the authority of hirananda ojha v. the emperor 9 c.w.n. 983 that cases where the person against whom proceedings are taken can give evidence on his own behalf are cases of a quasi-civil nature; but in proceedings under section 488 persons against whom orders of maintenance are applied for are permitted to tender themselves as witnesses and yet they are styled 'accused.' assuming that a counter-petitioner in proceedings under chapter x is a.....
Judgment:

Spencer, J.

1. We are of opinion that no appeal lies in this case against the order passed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a single Judge of this Court.

2. Orders made under Section 133 and connected sections are not excluded from the operation of Section 435 and there is no good reason for treating orders passed under this Chapter X which deals with public nuisances and prescribes that the procedure shall be that of a summons case, as not orders passed1 in a criminal trial within the words of Section 15 of the Letters-Patent Act.

3. It is argued on the authority of Hirananda Ojha v. The Emperor 9 C.W.N. 983 that cases where the person against whom proceedings are taken can give evidence on his own behalf are cases of a quasi-civil nature; but in proceedings under Section 488 persons against whom orders of maintenance are applied for are permitted to tender themselves as witnesses and yet they are styled 'accused.' Assuming that a counter-petitioner in proceedings under Chapter X is a competent witness on his own behalf this fact will not in our opinion render the proceedings any less a criminal trial. We dismiss this appeal.


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