Skip to content


Narayanasamy Aiyar Vs. Kuppusamy Aiyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in37Ind.Cas.41
AppellantNarayanasamy Aiyar
RespondentKuppusamy Aiyar
Cases ReferredRaghunatha Pandaram v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 528 - transfer of case by magistrates of co-ordinate jurisdiction--procedure. - - unfortunately it is clearly inconsistent with the ruling in raghunatha pandaram v. this case is clearly within the mischief referred to in raghunatha pandaram v......by way of appeal. this case is clearly within the mischief referred to in raghunatha pandaram v. emperor (1).i must sat aside the order of the magistrate and the case will be remanded for trial to the second class bench court of.....
Judgment:

Coutts Trotter, J.

1. I must set aside the order of the District Magistrate. Unfortunately it is clearly inconsistent with the ruling in Raghunatha Pandaram v. Enperor 26 M.k 130. I think it is obviously an inconvenient thing that Magistrates of co-ordinate jurisdiction should interfere with each other's jurisdiction. Thaman Ghetti v. Alagiri Ghetti 14 M.k 399, points out the distinction. Where a Magistrate acts on his, own initiative in transferring a case, his order is not vitiated by the fact that another Magistrate of co-ordinate authority has refused it. But if he examines the reasons given by the co-ordinate authority and finds that that authority is wrong, that is interfering by way of appeal. This case is clearly within the mischief referred to in Raghunatha Pandaram v. Emperor (1).

I must sat aside the order of the Magistrate and the case will be remanded for trial to the second class Bench Court of Kumbakonam.


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