Skip to content


Ambakkagari Nagi Raddi and ors. Vs. Basappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.79a
AppellantAmbakkagari Nagi Raddi and ors.
RespondentBasappa
Cases ReferredIn Emperor v. Palaniappavelan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 250 and 422 - order directing complainant to pay compensation--appeal by complainant--notice of appeal to accused. - - 1. we think that it would be much better if in cases of appeal under section 250, notice were given to the accused as he is the party prejudiced if the appeal is allowed and the order of compensation rescinded. k 187 there was no notice to the public prosecutor which was clearly required by section 250 read with section 422 and the interference of the high court in revision may be supported on this ground......it would be much better if in cases of appeal under section 250, notice were given to the accused as he is the party prejudiced if the appeal is allowed and the order of compensation rescinded. section 250(3), however, provides that there shall be an appeal from an order under the section as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such magistrate; and section 422 provides explicitly for cases in which notice of appeal is to be given to the public prosecutor and the accused, but says nothing of any notice being given to persons in the position of the petitioners. in emperor v. palaniappavelan 29 m.k 187 there was no notice to the public prosecutor which was clearly required by section 250 read with section 422 and the interference of the high court in.....
Judgment:

1. We think that it would be much better if in cases of appeal under Section 250, notice were given to the accused as he is the party prejudiced if the appeal is allowed and the order of compensation rescinded. Section 250(3), however, provides that there shall be an appeal from an order under the section as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate; and Section 422 provides explicitly for cases in which notice of appeal is to be given to the Public Prosecutor and the accused, but says nothing of any notice being given to persons in the position of the petitioners. In Emperor v. Palaniappavelan 29 M.k 187 there was no notice to the Public Prosecutor which was clearly required by Section 250 read with Section 422 and the interference of the High Court in revision may be supported on this ground. But in this case we can see no illegality and we are not prepared to interfere. We may observe that if the appeal succeeds the petitioners will not be called on to refund, as Section 250(4) provides that the compensation shall not be paid to him until the appeal is decided. The petition is dismissed.


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