Skip to content


N.M. Firm Vs. M. Venkatagiri Ayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR43Mad361
AppellantN.M. Firm
RespondentM. Venkatagiri Ayyar
Excerpt:
.....procedure code (v of 1898), sections 215 and 478 - letters patent, clause 15--order of commitment by a judge of the high court on the original side--appeal on questions of fact only, whether permissible. - - but supposing for the sake merely of argument, that such an appeal could be preferred under the general words of section 15 of the letters patent, section 215 of the criminal procedure code, in our opinion, explicitly and clearly says that an order of commitment made by any civil court can be quashed only on a point of law. that is a specific provision regarding orders of commitment made by the civil court under the provisions of section 478 of the criminal procedure code, and to that extent it clearly modifies the general provisions of section 15 of the letters patent, supposing..........it in a case of this nature. there are no rulings on the point. but we think that the enactment is not open to any doubt. mr. govindaraghava ayyar has referred us to a number of decisions on the interpretation of some of the sections in the civil procedure code. but we do not think it necessary to refer to them as in our opinion they are quite beside the point. we dismiss the appeal with costs of the government solicitor.
Judgment:

Abdur Rahim, Officiating C.J.

1. Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter, sitting on the Original Side of this Court, in the course of the trial of a civil case proceeded under Section 478, Criminal Procedure Code, and committed a certain witness who gave evidence in that case to the High Court Sessions for trial on charges of perjury. This appeal is filed on the civil side of this Court against the order of commitment as made by Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter.

2. A preliminary objection is raised that no appeal lies in such a matter, except under the provisions of Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Govindaraghava Ayyar, who appears for the appellant, admitted before us that he could not impeach the order on the grounds mentioned in Section 215. But he says that, apart from the provisions of that section, an appeal lies on general grounds to this Court, under the provisions of Section 15 of the Letters Patent. We have no hesitation in holding that Section 215 applies to this case, and an appeal is precluded by the express and clear language of that section, except under its provisions. That section says:

A commitment once made under Section 213 or by a Court of Session under Section 477, or by a Civil or Revenue Court under Section 478 can be quashed by the High Court only, and only on a point of law.

3. This is a specific injunction that a commitment made under Section 478 by the Civil Court can be quashed by the High Court only on a point law. Section 478 says that the proceedings of a Civil Court, acting under Section 478, shall be deemed to have been held by a Magistrate. The argument is that under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, there is an appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Coutts Trotter sitting on the Original Side of this Court, and that Section 215 should not be interpreted so as to take away that right. We do not desire to deal with the question whether under Section 15 of the Letters Patent an appeal would lie from the order of commitment made by the learned Judge trying a civil suit on the Original side of this Court. But supposing for the sake merely of argument, that such an appeal could be preferred under the general words of Section 15 of the Letters Patent, Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in our opinion, explicitly and clearly says that an order of commitment made by any Civil Court can be quashed only on a point of law. That is a specific provision regarding orders of commitment made by the Civil Court under the provisions of Section 478 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and to that extent it clearly modifies the general provisions of Section 15 of the Letters Patent, supposing that an appeal would lie under it in a case of this nature. There are no rulings on the point. But we think that the enactment is not open to any doubt. Mr. Govindaraghava Ayyar has referred us to a number of decisions on the interpretation of some of the sections in the Civil Procedure Code. But we do not think it necessary to refer to them as in our opinion they are quite beside the point. We dismiss the appeal with costs of the Government Solicitor.


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