Skip to content


King-emperor Vs. Alagarisami Pathan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad546
AppellantKing-emperor
RespondentAlagarisami Pathan and anr.
Cases ReferredVenkatesalu Naidu v. Durvasa Rangayyan Criminal Revision Case No.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code - act v of 1898, section 202--failure to 'record reasons' for postponing issue of process and inquiring into case--irregularity. - - the magistrate had jurisdiction to act under section 202 and his failure to record his reasons was at most an irregularity, and unless it, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice it could be no ground for setting aside his order.1. this court has, in its order in the case of venkatesalu naidu v. durvasa rangayyan criminal revision case no. 263 of 1901, (unreported) pointed out to the learned sessions judge that his reading of section 202, criminal procedure code, is incorrect. the magistrate had jurisdiction to act under section 202 and his failure to record his reasons was at most an irregularity, and unless it, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice it could be no ground for setting aside his order. the sessions judge does not suggest that the order was wrong on the merits and we see no reason to hold that it was so.2. we set aside the order of the sessions judge, dated 5th september 1901.
Judgment:

1. This Court has, in its order in the case of Venkatesalu Naidu v. Durvasa Rangayyan Criminal Revision Case No. 263 of 1901, (unreported) pointed out to the learned Sessions Judge that his reading of Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, is incorrect. The Magistrate had jurisdiction to act under Section 202 and his failure to record his reasons was at most an irregularity, and unless it, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice it could be no ground for setting aside his order. The Sessions Judge does not suggest that the order was wrong on the merits and we see no reason to hold that it was so.

2. We set aside the order of the Sessions Judge, dated 5th September 1901.


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