Skip to content


Ramaswami and anr. Vs. King-emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad613
AppellantRamaswami and anr.
RespondentKing-emperor
Cases ReferredSee Alimudi v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- - accused can hardly have anticipated that complainant would admit payments not endorsed in writing so the motive is plain. nor would this court interfere in revision on a mere question of motive which is at best guesswork......v. emperor : air1925cal361 . considering that the general questioning is followed by the specific charge accused does not seem to be prejudiced by the magistrate not discussing the case with him in specific detail before the charge; and there seems to be no practical objection to the madras practice nor is it illegal.(2) accused had no motive to compel the complainant to endorse the pronote. accused can hardly have anticipated that complainant would admit payments not endorsed in writing so the motive is plain. nor would this court interfere in revision on a mere question of motive which is at best guesswork. it is not understood why the accused was first sentenced to and then after the event relieved from imprisonment till the rising of the court. it seems to be a solemn farce. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. Two points are raised in this petition.

(1) The Magistrate has not complied with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, by questioning the accused generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution were examined; he should have put specific questions, This is not laid down in Section 342, and has not been the practice in this province so far as I am aware. Apparently another practice prevails in Patna [See In Re Emperor v. Barkat A. I. R. 1926 Lah. 447 and possibly in Calcutta [See Alimudi v. Emperor : AIR1925Cal361 . Considering that the general questioning is followed by the specific charge accused does not seem to be prejudiced by the Magistrate not discussing the case with him in specific detail before the charge; and there seems to be no practical objection to the Madras practice nor is it illegal.

(2) Accused had no motive to compel the complainant to endorse the pronote. Accused can hardly have anticipated that complainant would admit payments not endorsed in writing so the motive is plain. Nor would this Court interfere in revision on a mere question of motive which is at best guesswork. It is not understood why the accused was first sentenced to and then after the event relieved from imprisonment till the rising of the Court. It seems to be a solemn farce. The petition is dismissed.


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