Skip to content


In Re: Manikonda Lingayya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1923)45MLJ683
AppellantIn Re: Manikonda Lingayya and anr.
Excerpt:
- - 1. the refusal of the sub divisional magistrate to entertain the appeal unless a vakalat was filed, although a memo, of appearance was put in, was clearly wrong, see in re muni reddi 5 m.orderwallace, j.1. the refusal of the sub divisional magistrate to entertain the appeal unless a vakalat was filed, although a memo, of appearance was put in, was clearly wrong, see in re muni reddi 5 m.l.t. 290 and contrary to rule 161 of criminal rules of practice. in any case the appeal had been already entertained by a proper court and was then transferred to him for disposal.2. the order of the sub divisional magistrate is set aside. he is directed to admit and hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

Wallace, J.

1. The refusal of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to entertain the appeal unless a Vakalat was filed, although a memo, of appearance was put in, was clearly wrong, See In re Muni Reddi 5 M.L.T. 290 and contrary to rule 161 of Criminal Rules of Practice. In any case the appeal had been already entertained by a proper Court and was then transferred to him for disposal.

2. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is set aside. He is directed to admit and hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.


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