Skip to content


Picha Kudumban Vs. Servaikara thevan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931Mad494
AppellantPicha Kudumban
RespondentServaikara thevan and ors.
Cases ReferredEmperor v. Ayyan
Excerpt:
- - 2. there is no doubt that the offence complained of according to the allegations in the complaint is one coming within the purview of section 430, i......j.1. this is a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant against the judgment of a bench of magistrates acquitting the accused.2. there is no doubt that the offence complained of according to the allegations in the complaint is one coming within the purview of section 430, i. p.c. the bench court has no jurisdiction to;try such a case. but this case seems to have been sent to the bench court for trial, treating it to be a case regarding an offence under section 426, i. p.c. the question is whether the bench court should be deemed to have clutched at jurisdiction. it would be so, if they tried the case for an offence under section 430, i. p.c. by trying the accused for a lesser offence under section 426, i. p.c., (for which they had jurisdiction) their proceedings would.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Sundaram Chetty, J.

1. This is a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant against the judgment of a Bench of Magistrates acquitting the accused.

2. There is no doubt that the offence complained of according to the allegations in the complaint is one coming within the purview of Section 430, I. P.C. The Bench Court has no jurisdiction to;try such a case. But this case seems to have been sent to the Bench Court for trial, treating it to be a case regarding an offence under Section 426, I. P.C. The question is whether the Bench Court should be deemed to have clutched at jurisdiction. It would be so, if they tried the case for an offence under Section 430, I. P.C. By trying the accused for a lesser offence under Section 426, I. P.C., (for which they had jurisdiction) their proceedings would not be void Emperor v. Ayyan [1901] 24 Mad. 675 and In re, Mohideen Bacha Sahib [1914] 14 Cri.L.J. 640.

3. Where the accused is not prejudiced there will be no interference in revision, though the case ended in conviction, and a fortiori there will be no interference in the case of an acquittal.

4. In the present case there is a graver irregularity verging on illegality. Though only three Magistrates of the Bench heard the evidence and tried the case, the judgment is signed by seven. It is clear that four of the Magistrates who delivered this judgment, never heard the case at all. This is illegal and in case of conviction this illegality vitiates it. (Re, Subramania Ayyar [1915] 38 Mad. 304 and In re, Tantravahi Bapiraju [1919] 20 Cri.L.J. 823. Though in this case the result was an acquittal the nature of the illegality is such as would warrant interference in revision in the interests of the public.

5. I therefore set aside the order of the Bench Court, and direct a retrial of this case, by any Second Class Magistrate whom the District Magistrate chooses for trying it.


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