Skip to content


Tirumana Goundan and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad544
AppellantTirumana Goundan and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Cases Referred and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- - emperor air1926bom534 ,that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, the question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused.order1. we concur in the view expressed in forbes v. ali haider khan : air1925cal1246 and khushal jeram v. emperor : air1926bom534 , that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, the question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. we see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance. the petition is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We concur in the view expressed in Forbes v. Ali Haider Khan : AIR1925Cal1246 and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor : AIR1926Bom534 , that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings, The question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. We see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance. The petition is dismissed.


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