Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Kuppayyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1895)ILR18Mad51
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentKuppayyar and anr.
Cases ReferredCf. Ram Chandra Das v. Monohur Roy I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act x of 1882, section 145--parties bound by order. - - best, j.best, j.1. i concur in the opinion expressed in re gopal burnawar 3 b.l.r. app. cr. 13 that an order passed under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure is binding only on the actual parties to the case in which it was passed.2. the mere fact of a person being examined as a witness in such a case does not make him a 'party ' bound by the order.3. the inconvenience pointed out by the district magistrate can be avoided by care being taken to include as parties to proceedings under section 145 all persons interested in, or claiming a right to, the property in dispute. cf. ram chandra das v. monohur roy i.l.r. 21 cal. 294. this case is not one calling for interference under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure.
Judgment:

Best, J.

1. I concur in the opinion expressed in re Gopal Burnawar 3 B.L.R. App. Cr. 13 that an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is binding only on the actual parties to the case in which it was passed.

2. The mere fact of a person being examined as a witness in such a case does not make him a 'party ' bound by the order.

3. The inconvenience pointed out by the District Magistrate can be avoided by care being taken to include as parties to proceedings under Section 145 all persons interested in, or claiming a right to, the property in dispute. Cf. Ram Chandra Das v. Monohur Roy I.L.R. 21 Cal. 29

4. This case is not one calling for interference under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.


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