Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Karuppana Pillai and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1906)ILR29Mad188
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKaruppana Pillai and anr.
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Tangavelu Chetti I.L.R. Mad.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, act v of 1898, section 423 - order under directing payment of costs not an enhancement of sentence--court fees act vii of 1870. - .....to order it to be paid does not amount to an enhancement of the sentence.2. we disagree with the decision in queen-empress v. tangavelu chetti i.l.r. mad......
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We think that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order in appeal directing the accused to pay the costs of the complainant is not illegal as it does not amount to an enhancement of sentence. The order is made under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act, and is entirely irrespective of the penalty or sentence passed under the Indian Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been held in Madan Mandul v. Satan Ghose I.L.R. Cal 687 that it forms no part of the sentence, and the Court Pees Act itself says that 'the Court shall in addition to the penalty imposed order it to be paid. It is not therefore any part of the sentence, and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal correcting the omission of the Court below to order it to be paid does not amount to an enhancement of the sentence.

2. We disagree with the decision in Queen-Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti I.L.R. Mad. 153.


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