Skip to content


In Re: H.M. Abdul Razack Saib - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ753
AppellantIn Re: H.M. Abdul Razack Saib
Cases ReferredPerumal Naidu v. Emperor I.
Excerpt:
- - 2. assuming for the sake of argument that the magistrate's sanction was necessary its absence doss not entail the reversal of the conviction unless it is shown to have occasioned a failure of justice which has certainly not been proved in the present case. this appears clearly to be the meaning of section 537, cr. this is a point to be borne in mind as laid down in the explanation to section 537; but it does not by itself indicate that any failure of justice occurred......is argued by the petitioner's vakil that inasmuch as the petitioner preferred a complaint to the presidency magistrate after his complaint to the police had been enquired into, the presidency magistrate's sanction for prosecution was necessary under section 195, cr.p.c., and its absence vitiates the proceedings.2. assuming for the sake of argument that the magistrate's sanction was necessary its absence doss not entail the reversal of the conviction unless it is shown to have occasioned a failure of justice which has certainly not been proved in the present case. this appears clearly to be the meaning of section 537, cr.p.c., and it has been so interpreted in perumal naidu v. emperor i.lr. (1907) m. 80. the petitioner's vakil seeks to distinguish the latter case on the ground that.....
Judgment:

1. It is argued by the petitioner's vakil that inasmuch as the petitioner preferred a complaint to the Presidency Magistrate after his complaint to the Police had been enquired into, the Presidency Magistrate's sanction for prosecution was necessary under Section 195, Cr.P.C., and its absence vitiates the proceedings.

2. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Magistrate's sanction was necessary its absence doss not entail the reversal of the conviction unless it is shown to have occasioned a failure of justice which has certainly not been proved in the present case. This appears clearly to be the meaning of Section 537, Cr.P.C., and it has been so interpreted in Perumal Naidu v. Emperor I.LR. (1907) M. 80. The petitioner's vakil seeks to distinguish the latter case on the ground that there the objection was not taken when the case under Section 211, I.P.C., first came on for evidence. This is a point to be borne in mind as laid down in the Explanation to Section 537; but it does not by itself indicate that any failure of justice occurred.

3. On the merits of the case we see no reason to differ from the Magistrate's conclusion.

4. The petition is dismissed.


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