Skip to content


Sangamma Naick and ors. Vs. Emperor and - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in18Ind.Cas.401
AppellantSangamma Naick and ors.
RespondentEmperor and ;perumal Naick
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 107, 110 and 537 - summons issued under section 107--proceedings taken under section 110--prejudice to accused--irregularity. - - 2. there is, no doubt, some evidence against some of the other accused persons and perhaps against all, but it is not strong in any case, and i find it impossible to ascertain from the district magistrate's order what, he considers, is proved as against any particular person. 5. the irregularity in procedure to which objection is taken is, i think, clearly cured by section 537 of the criminal procedure code......against him will not be set aside.2. there is, no doubt, some evidence against some of the other accused persons and perhaps against all, but it is not strong in any case, and i find it impossible to ascertain from the district magistrate's order what, he considers, is proved as against any particular person.3. the order of the court of first instance is at least as much lacking in precision. the magistrate, accepting the prosecution witnesses as trustworthy, says that they depose that all the accused collect in the 1st accused's house and are maintained by him, and to meet other expenses he levied kaval fees. if that is all there is, obviously it is no evidence sufficient to make out any of the charges against any but the 1st accused. there is, however, other evidence of a somewhat.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Miller, J.

1. There was clear evidence against 1st accused who is dead, and the order against him will not be set aside.

2. There is, no doubt, some evidence against some of the other accused persons and perhaps against all, but it is not strong in any case, and I find it impossible to ascertain from the District Magistrate's order what, he considers, is proved as against any particular person.

3. The order of the Court of first instance is at least as much lacking in precision. The Magistrate, accepting the prosecution witnesses as trustworthy, says that they depose that all the accused collect in the 1st accused's house and are maintained by him, and to meet other expenses he levied kaval fees. If that is all there is, obviously it is no evidence sufficient to make out any of the charges against any but the 1st accused. There is, however, other evidence of a somewhat vague nature that the 1st accused used the others for purposes of committing crimes and I take it that it is on this that the 1st class Magistrate relies.

4. From neither order is it clear, in any case, except that of the 1st accused, what is found proved against any particular person and, on that ground, I think the orders require revision and I set them aside and cancel the bonds. The 1st accused is dead and it is now more than a year since the order was made, the surviving accused were charged only as being in the employ of the 1st accused and it seems, in these circumstances, unnecessary to order fresh inquiry.

5. The irregularity in procedure to which objection is taken is, I think, clearly cured by Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.


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