Skip to content


Alluri Subbaraju and Alluri Venkatasomaraju Vs. Alluri Rambhadra Raju Alias Varahalu Raju - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in35Ind.Cas.821
AppellantAlluri Subbaraju and Alluri Venkatasomaraju
RespondentAlluri Rambhadra Raju Alias Varahalu Raju
Cases ReferredKamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 145(7) - charter act (24 & 25 vic. c. 104), section 15--high court--revision--death of party pending revision-abatement--power to deal suo motu on merits in absence of questions affecting jurisdiction. - - 1154 to deal with the magistrate's order by way of revision of our own motion, since we have satisfied ourselves chat he complied with the formalities essential to his having jurisdiction......udayavarma raja valia raja of chirakal 17 ind. cas. 65 : (1912) m.w.n. 1154 to deal with the magistrate's order by way of revision of our own motion, since we have satisfied ourselves chat he complied with the formalities essential to his having jurisdiction.4. the criminal revision petition no. 170 of 1916 (criminal revision case no. 205 of 1916) filed by the deceased respondent is, therefore, dismissed. his son's application, criminal miscellaneous petition no. 320 of 1916, is also dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The respondent against whom this order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was passed, died after presenting this petition for revision under Section 15 of the Charter Act, and his son has now applied to be brought on the record in order to prosecute it.

2. His application has been supported solely by reference to Section 145(7). But that clause statedly regulates only proceedings under the section and we have been shown no authority for extension of its purview to others, such as the proceedings before us under the Charter Act. No authority has been adduced which is in point; and in these circumstances we cannot place the applicant on the record or hear his Vakil.

3. It is also impossible for us, consistently with the decision of Kamal Kutty v. Udayavarma Raja Valia Raja of Chirakal 17 Ind. Cas. 65 : (1912) M.W.N. 1154 to deal with the Magistrate's order by way of revision of our own motion, since we have satisfied ourselves chat he complied with the formalities essential to his having jurisdiction.

4. The Criminal Revision Petition No. 170 of 1916 (Criminal Revision Case No. 205 of 1916) filed by the deceased respondent is, therefore, dismissed. His son's application, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 320 of 1916, is also dismissed.


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