Skip to content


In Re: Palaniappa Asary and ors. Vs.   - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.682
AppellantIn Re: Palaniappa Asary and ors.
RespondentAndnbsp;
Cases ReferredNabu Sardar v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 117, 242 - failure to follow the procedure laid down in section 242--revision. - .....the matter against them and ask them if they could show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds. he says that he made an order under section 112--an order which appears in the form of a summons--and 1 understand that that order was explained to the accused.2. but the sub-divisional magistrate instead of asking them if they were prepared to show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds; put this question to them. are you willing to execute the bond required, or do you wish for further enquiry? and they replied that they would execute bonds. it seems to me that this was a misleading question not calculated to ascertain the truth of the information against the accused; they were not asked whether the information was true or false and they did not admit its.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Miller, J.

1. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeding under Section 117 as nearly as practicable in the same way as under Section 242, Criminal Procedure Code, had to state to the accused so to style them, the particulars of the matter against them and ask them if they could show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds. He says that he made an order under Section 112--an order which appears in the form of a summons--and 1 understand that that order was explained to the accused.

2. But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate instead of asking them if they were prepared to show cause why they should not be required to execute bonds; put this question to them. Are you willing to execute the bond required, or do you wish for further enquiry? and they replied that they would execute bonds. It seems to me that this was a misleading question not calculated to ascertain the truth of the information against the accused; they were not asked whether the information was true or false and they did not admit its truth. By Section 117 the Magistrate is required to satisfy himself by enquiry of the truth of the information before making an order for the execution of the bond and though it may be that the question put under Section 242 is sufficient enquiry if it produces an answer, which shows that the information is true, no such answer was obtained in the present case.. The enquiry under Section 117 being irregular, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate must be set aside. It is not clear to me, and it is not necessary to decide, that the procedure of the 2nd class Magistrate was irregular as the District Magistrate suggests; nor do I decide whether the District Magistrate was right in his view of his powers under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. The decision to which he refers has, however, been overruled by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, Nabu Sardar v. Emperor 24 C. 1; it is probable that there exists no reason for ordering further proceedings and the Public Prosecutor does not ask for any order.

3. The orders are set aside and the bonds cancelled.


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