Skip to content


In Re: Pedda Kambi Reddy and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad345; (1943)1MLJ248
AppellantIn Re: Pedda Kambi Reddy and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....his own powers, acted under section 349, criminal procedure code and referred the case to the joint magistrate of madanapalle. the joint magistrate duly convicted and sentenced all of the accused and also passed an order under section 106 of the criminal procedure code.2. it is not quite clear from the record that the accused were present when the joint magistrate disposed of the reference, but we may assume that the joint magistrate did what was obviously required of him. we find that a letter was sent to the sub-magistrate of piler ordering him to bind over the accused before him on the 17 th december, 1941, but there are no bonds in the record to suggest that they were bound over. however that may be, the joint magistrate certainly did not dispose of the case in a satisfactory.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. The Sub-Magistrate of Piler, being of opinion that the accused ought to be dealt with in a manner beyond his own powers, acted under Section 349, Criminal Procedure Code and referred the case to the Joint Magistrate of Madanapalle. The Joint Magistrate duly convicted and sentenced all of the accused and also passed an order under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. It is not quite clear from the record that the accused were present when the Joint Magistrate disposed of the reference, but we may assume that the Joint Magistrate did what was obviously required of him. We find that a letter was sent to the Sub-Magistrate of Piler ordering him to bind over the accused before him on the 17 th December, 1941, but there are no bonds in the record to suggest that they were bound over. However that may be, the Joint Magistrate certainly did not dispose of the case in a satisfactory manner. The case, after the reference to him, was a continuation of the original trial; and the accused had the same rights as they had before the reference. The Joint Magistrate was under the same obligation to hear arguments from the pleaders present and to write a judgment giving his reasons for his order as in an ordinary calendar case tried entirely by him. Instead of writing his own judgment, the Joint Magistrate embodied the order of the Sub-Magistrate, prefixing the order with the words, ' The facts of the case are stated below in the words of the Sub-Magistrate.' After the Sub-Magistrate's order had been set out verbatim the Joint Magistrate added, ' I convict all the accused and sentence every one of them except A-5 to a fine of Rs. 25 . . . I am of opinion that a bond for keeping the peace should be taken from them. I order all the accused under Section 106 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, to execute a bond ...' This is not a proper judgment.

3. The petition is therefore allowed, the 'conviction and sentences and the order under Section 106 (1) are set aside, and the case is remanded to the Joint Magistrate for disposal according to law. If the accused are represented by a pleader he should hear that pleader; if they are not, he should ask them if they wished to say anything before he pronounces judgment.


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