Skip to content


(Annai) Errappa and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Mad186
Appellant(Annai) Errappa and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredAbdul Rahman v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- - 1 and 2, section 361 are mutually exclusive, an accused person is often in a much better position than his pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that the ought to be kept informed of what is being said. emperor has dispelled that idea, and section 537 may be taken to cover any irregularity in the widest sense of that term, provided there has been no failure of justice. the sub-divisional magistrate ought not to have ordered retrial in those cases without satisfying himself whether or no a failure of justice had been occasioned......evidence was not translated to the appellant as required by section 361, civil p.c.2. the sub-divisional magistrate in my opinion was right in holding that the code lays down that such translation should be made and with all respect i do not agree with the ruling in hari narayan chandra v. emperor : air1928cal27 that paras. 1 and 2, section 361 are mutually exclusive, an accused person is often in a much better position than his pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that the ought to be kept informed of what is being said. but the sub-divisional magistrate misdirects himself when he observes that the irregularity cannot be cured under section 537, criminal p.c. no doubt after subramania ayyar v. emperor [1902] 25 mad. 61 an idea prevailed that section 637,.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. This is a reference from the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor. In four appeals the Joint Magistrate of Chandragiri has ordered a retrial of the appellant because certain witnesses at the original trial gave evidence in English and their evidence was not translated to the appellant as required by Section 361, Civil P.C.

2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in my opinion was right in holding that the code lays down that such translation should be made and with all respect I do not agree with the ruling in Hari Narayan Chandra v. Emperor : AIR1928Cal27 that paras. 1 and 2, Section 361 are mutually exclusive, An accused person is often in a much better position than his pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that the ought to be kept informed of what is being said. But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate misdirects himself when he observes that the irregularity cannot be cured under Section 537, Criminal P.C. No doubt after Subramania Ayyar v. Emperor [1902] 25 Mad. 61 an idea prevailed that Section 637, Criminal P.C., did not apply to the mandatory provisions of the code, although there is nothing in the section itself to give it such a restricted shape. But the ruling in Abdul Rahman v. Emperor has dispelled that idea, and Section 537 may be taken to cover any irregularity in the widest sense of that term, provided there has been no failure of justice. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ought not to have ordered retrial in those cases without satisfying himself whether or no a failure of justice had been occasioned.

3. With these observations his order in all four cases is set aside, and he is directed to rehear the appeals.


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