Skip to content


Sundarasan Vs. King-emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR43Mad709
AppellantSundarasan
RespondentKing-emperor
Cases ReferredJhuna Lal Sahu v. The King
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 190(c) - district magistrate receiving information of offence, as president of district board--right to take cognisance under section 190(c). - .....him, the magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the same under section 190, sub-section (1)(c), as if it was a matter that had come to his knowledge from a source other than a complaint of facts constituting an offence, as 'complaint' is defined in the code.
Judgment:

Spencer, J.

1. I concur. I only wish to add that I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Carnduff in Lakhi Narayan Ghose v. Emperor I.L.R. (1910) Cal. 221 that the decision in Thakur Pershad Singh v. The Emperor 10 C.W.N. 776 goes beyond the provisions of the Code and is not; a decision which can be followed without question.

2. Another case, Jhuna Lal Sahu v. The King-Emperor (1917) Pat L.J. 657, was quoted to us. But, as I understand that case, there was a complaint in writing, of which the Magistrate might have taken cognizance under Section 190, Sub-section (1)(a), and the learned Judges were of opinion that, having such a complaint before him, the Magistrate was not justified in taking cognizance of the same under Section 190, Sub-section (1)(c), as if it was a matter that had come to his knowledge from a source other than a complaint of facts constituting an offence, as 'complaint' is defined in the Code.


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