Skip to content


Jaldu Manikyala Rao and ors. Vs. Nimmagadda Venkatappayya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1946Mad447; (1946)1MLJ443
AppellantJaldu Manikyala Rao and ors.
RespondentNimmagadda Venkatappayya
Excerpt:
- .....appearance and that they cannot be compelled to appear in court merely because they happen to be parties to proceedings under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure. i do not think the magistrate was right in saying that he can compel parties in proceedings under section 145 to appear in court. it may be open to him to summon them as witnesses if they are wanted either as court witnesses or witnesses for the other side. but then they will be attending court as witnesses and not as party. even under the preliminary order it is stated that the respondents were to appear either in person or by pleader. the magistrate himself had permitted them to appear by pleader and that order has not been cancelled. the magistrate therefore was not justified in insisting upon the attendance of.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate of Masulipatam, dismissing the petition of the petitioners stating that they cannot be compelled to execute bonds for appearance and that they cannot be compelled to appear in Court merely because they happen to be parties to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not think the Magistrate was right in saying that he can compel parties in proceedings under Section 145 to appear in Court. It may be open to him to summon them as witnesses if they are wanted either as Court witnesses or witnesses for the other side. But then they will be attending Court as witnesses and not as party. Even under the preliminary order it is stated that the respondents were to appear either in person or by pleader. The Magistrate himself had permitted them to appear by pleader and that order has not been cancelled. The Magistrate therefore was not justified in insisting upon the attendance of these petitioners if they are not willing to appear in Court but are content with appearance by pleader. Further if they do not appear and let in evidence, then the case will be disposed of ex parte after taking the evidence that may be let in by the other side. In these circumstances the order of the Magistrate insisting upon their appearing in person and executing bonds is incorrect and is therefore set aside.


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