Skip to content


Ramaswami Aiyangar and anr. Vs. Ramaswami Patrachar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1938)2MLJ509
AppellantRamaswami Aiyangar and anr.
RespondentRamaswami Patrachar and ors.
Cases ReferredSevugan Chettiar v. Karuppan Chettiar
Excerpt:
- .....144. i have no doubt that the learned joint magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the orders prohibiting certain respondents from interfering with the execution by the trustee of a certain undertaking given by him and prohibiting certain respondents from entering the temple without the written consent of the trustee. these orders of the learned magistrate are without jurisdiction and are therefore declared to be null and void. no doubt these orders were to be in force for only two months and that period has long ago been expired. nevertheless the respondents are entitled to have it declared that the orders referred to above are without jurisdiction and are of no force and effect. it is needless to say that this declaration does not in any way decide the respective rights of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. In this case the Sub-Magistrate of Valangiman made a certain order under Section 144(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both the parties applied to the Joint Magistrate of Kumbakonam under Sub-section (4) of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code and after hearing these petitions, the learned Joint Magistrate not only rescinded the order of the Sub-Magistrate but went further and made certain other orders which had nothing to do with the order which was sought to be rescinded or altered. In other words, he made a positive order prohibiting respondents 2 to 8 in one of the petitions from in any way interfering with the execution by the trustee of a certain undertaking given by him and another prohibiting respondents 2 and 3 from entering the temple without the written consent of the trustee. In a somewhat similar case where the superior Magistrate did not confine himself to rescinding the order of the inferior Magistrate but went to the length of prohibiting certain counter-petitioners from taking a car in procession, namely, Muthukumaraswami Nadar v. Muhammad Rowther (1921) 42 M.L.J. 352, Odgers, J., held that the superior Magistrate was acting without jurisdiction inasmuch as the jurisdiction conferred by Sub-section (4) of Section 144 is confined to rescinding or altering the order of the inferior Magistrate. I have had to consider the same question recently in Sevugan Chettiar v. Karuppan Chettiar : AIR1937Mad487 . There I came to the conclusion that while it is open to the superior Magistrate to alter or rescind the order of the inferior Magistrate, he cannot make a new order under Section 144 (4), Criminal Procedure Code, though no doubt he could have made it under Sub-section (1) of Section 144. I have no doubt that the learned Joint Magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the orders prohibiting certain respondents from interfering with the execution by the trustee of a certain undertaking given by him and prohibiting certain respondents from entering the temple without the written consent of the trustee. These orders of the learned Magistrate are without jurisdiction and are therefore declared to be null and void. No doubt these orders were to be in force for only two months and that period has long ago been expired. Nevertheless the respondents are entitled to have it declared that the orders referred to above are without jurisdiction and are of no force and effect. It is needless to say that this declaration does not in any way decide the respective rights of the parties as it refers only to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate and that too when acting under Sub-section (4) of Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code. It does not in any way prevent the Magistrate from acting, if necessary, under the first sub-section of Section 144 in future.


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