Skip to content


E. Thimmiah and ors. Vs. King-emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad136
AppellantE. Thimmiah and ors.
RespondentKing-emperor
Cases ReferredIn Queen Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti
Excerpt:
- - 153 was decided by a single judge in september 1898. the headnote to the report indicates that it was a decision under the code of 1882 which bad not the same provision under section 423(d) for passing incidental or consequential orders in appeal that was introduced by act v of 1898. 4. i hold that the making of an order under section 31 of the court fees act does not ordinarily amount to an enhancement of sentence but may be made as an incidental order to bring the judgments into conformity with the law......order to pay an increased amount as an enhancement of the sentence. i do not find any such objection to exist in the present case to the joint magistrate's order.5. the criminal revision petition is therefore dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Spencer, J.

1. This criminal revision case has been admitted on the question of the validity of the appellate Court's order to pay the complainant's Court fees under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act.

2. At the hearing an objection has been raised that the appellate Courts' judgment is defective under Section 367 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure because the Joint Magistrate did not discuss the hearing of the evidence of each prosecution witness of the guilt of each accused. This is not one of the grounds stated in the revision petition and I do not find any substance in it.

3. The order to collect Court fees from the accused passed by the appellate Court is not an enhancement of the sentence under the authority of Vemuri Seshanna; In re (1904) 26 Mad. 421. The case in Queen-Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti (1900) 22 Mad. 153 was decided by a single Judge in September 1898. The headnote to the report indicates that it was a decision under the Code of 1882 which bad not the same provision under Section 423(D) for passing incidental or consequential orders in appeal that was introduced by Act V of 1898.

4. I hold that the making of an order under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act does not ordinarily amount to an enhancement of sentence but may be made as an incidental order to bring the judgments into conformity with the law. Section 31 of the Court Fees Act provides that all fees ordered to be repaid under this section shall be recoverable 'as if they were fines,' but does not thereby make them part of the sentence. In Queen Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti (1900) 22 Mad. 153 the Assistant Magistrate who tried the case made an order for a part of the Court fees claimed by the complainant to be repaid out of the fine collected as sentence and it was for this reason that Justice Moore was impelled to treat the Assistant Magistrate's order to pay the fee as an integral part of the sentence and to regard the Deputy Magistrate's order to pay an increased amount as an enhancement of the sentence. I do not find any such objection to exist in the present case to the Joint Magistrate's order.

5. The Criminal Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.


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