Skip to content


T.S. Ramabhadra Odayar Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad1198
AppellantT.S. Ramabhadra Odayar
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- - 16, until the magistrate is himself satisfied that a notice should go under section 204. 3. i rule that the enquiry now going on is an enquiry under chap......to have issued a notice under section 204. two points are raised on this, viz., that the sessions judge's action in issuing a notice to the accused was illegal and (2) that the further enquiry must be still under chap-16.2. as to the first point a full bench of this court has held that accused persons have no locus standi in enquiries under chap. 16. this principle is, to my mind, equally applicable when the order in such an enquiry is under revision either in the sessions court or in this court. the sessions judge's action in issuing notice to accused was therefore improper, if not illegal. as to the second point the sessions judge does not say whether the further enquiry is under chap. 16 or chap. 17. while the magistrate's action in issuing notice straightaway under section 204.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Wallace, J.

1. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203, and the Sessions Judge after notice to accused and hearing them, ordered further enquiry. On this the Magistrate, without taking any further evidence, appears to have issued a notice under Section 204. Two points are raised on this, viz., that the Sessions Judge's action in issuing a notice to the accused was illegal and (2) that the further enquiry must be still under Chap-16.

2. As to the first point a Full Bench of this Court has held that accused persons have no locus standi in enquiries under Chap. 16. This principle is, to my mind, equally applicable when the order in such an enquiry is under revision either in the Sessions Court or in this Court. The Sessions Judge's action in issuing notice to accused was therefore improper, if not illegal. As to the second point the Sessions Judge does not say whether the further enquiry is under Chap. 16 or Chap. 17. While the Magistrate's action in issuing notice straightaway under Section 204 without any evidence being added to the evidence which he has already rejected may not be illegal, it is very undesirable. The Code evidently intends that the further enquiry should be in order to sea whether a notice under Section 204 should not issue (i.e.) it is still an enquiry under Chap. 16. I think the position should now be made regular and that the enquiry should continue as one under Chap. 16, until the Magistrate is himself satisfied that a notice should go under Section 204.

3. I rule that the enquiry now going on is an enquiry under Chap. 16 and that the notice issued under Section 204 be cancelled.


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