Skip to content


V. Ramamurthi Ayyar and anr. Vs. Parasaram Mangayacharyulu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in52Ind.Cas.609
AppellantV. Ramamurthi Ayyar and anr.
RespondentParasaram Mangayacharyulu and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 65, 190 - magistrate directing arrest of accused, legality of--damages, suit for--magistrate, liability of. - - 1. the pleadings clearly state that the second defendant the sub magistrate, was acting under sections 190 and 65 of the criminal procedure code in respect of a complaint under section 448 of the indian penal code, when he went to the temple and found the plaintiffs barricading themselves inside and refusing to open the door, and then arrested them, releasing them immediately after on their recognizance to appear to answer a charge under section 443 of the indian penal code. his acts and those of the 1st defendant, the inspector or police, were perfectly legal......and 65 of the criminal procedure code in respect of a complaint under section 448 of the indian penal code, when he went to the temple and found the plaintiffs barricading themselves inside and refusing to open the door, and then arrested them, releasing them immediately after on their recognizance to appear to answer a charge under section 443 of the indian penal code. his acts and those of the 1st defendant, the inspector or police, were perfectly legal. the subordinate judge has misread the evidence of the sub-magistrate, who does not say that he had disposed of the occurrence report which reached him on the previous day. as he has passed no final order on the report, it was open to him to take action upon it next day, and further under section 190 (1) (c) the facts which he saw at.....
Judgment:

1. The pleadings clearly state that the second defendant the Sub Magistrate, was acting under Sections 190 and 65 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of a complaint under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code, when he went to the temple and found the plaintiffs barricading themselves inside and refusing to open the door, and then arrested them, releasing them immediately after on their recognizance to appear to answer a charge under Section 443 of the Indian Penal Code. His acts and those of the 1st defendant, the Inspector or Police, were perfectly legal. The Subordinate Judge has misread the evidence of the Sub-Magistrate, who does not say that he had disposed of the occurrence report which reached him on the previous day. As he has passed no final order on the report, it was open to him to take action upon it next day, and further under Section 190 (1) (c) the facts which he saw at the temple were sufficient to justify him in taking action independently of the occurrence report. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs here and in the lower Appellate Court.


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