Skip to content


T.S. Sundararamier Vs. Chinnapalani Ambalam - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1943Mad566; (1943)1MLJ351
AppellantT.S. Sundararamier
RespondentChinnapalani Ambalam
Excerpt:
- .....notice went to the complainant, but not to the grown as was required under section 422 of the code of criminal procedure. arguments were heard, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside. the complainant now approaches this court in revision to set aside the order of the sub-divisional magistrate on the ground that the complainant was not given a proper opportunity of appearing by counsel to argue the case for conviction.2. there can be no doubt that the sub-divisional magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provision of section 422 of the code of criminal procedure which requires notice to the crown. it was not necessary to give notice to the complainant especially as no compensation was awarded to him. the question, however, is whether in the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. On a private complaint, the accused was convicted by the Stationary Sub-Magistrate of MaduraTaluk under Section 323, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. In appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Melur, notice went to the complainant, but not to the Grown as was required under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Arguments were heard, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence set aside. The complainant now approaches this Court in revision to set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the ground that the complainant was not given a proper opportunity of appearing by counsel to argue the case for conviction.

2. There can be no doubt that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not comply with the mandatory provision of Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires notice to the Crown. It was not necessary to give notice to the complainant especially as no compensation was awarded to him. The question, however, is whether in the circumstances of this case any interference by this Court is called for. Mr. Baluswami for the petitioner has shown me many cases in which this Court and the other High Courts have interfered in revision where this mandatory provision of the Code was not complied with; but in all these cases either the District Magistrate made a reference, or the Crown filed an appeal or revision petition, or the petition filed by the complainant was supported by the Crown. The facts that notice is required under Section 422 to go to the Crown but no mention of notice to a private party is made indicate that the parties concerned in a criminal appeal from a conviction are the convicted person and the Crown. If, as in this case, the Crown supports, the order of acquittal, then we are not concerned with the attitude taken by the complainant who instituted the proceedings in the trial Magistrate's Court. Moreover, in the present case no important question is at issue. A petty offence was held by the Magistrate to have been committed that was punishable under Section 323, Indian Penal Code; and a petty fine was imposed. The interests of justice certainly do not require that this Court should interfere in revision in this matter.

3. The petition is dismissed.


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