Skip to content


Popuri Peddanna and ors. Vs. Tummala Ganta Kotiah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.761
AppellantPopuri Peddanna and ors.
RespondentTummala Ganta Kotiah and ors.
Cases ReferredRaiendra Narain Roy v. Mahomed Arzumand Khan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 148(3) - scope of the section--jurisdiction of magistrate to award costs not provided for in the section--stamp act (ii of 1899), section 44(3)--high court--revision. - .....other than those provided for by the code of criminal procedure.2. the case, raiendra narain roy v. mahomed arzumand khan 9 c.w.n. 887 is cited as authority for the view that costs not mentioned in section 148(3) may be dealt with by the magistrate, but we do not find that the question was there considered, nor is it clear that the costs dealt with were not covered by the language of the section.3. we are then asked to hold that the learned judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the magistrate's order, but the magistrate's order was made without jurisdiction and in excess of the magistrate's powers, and this court will interfere, if necessary, in such a case.4. we dismiss the appeal.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Section 148(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code permits a Magistrate to direct by whom are to be paid any costs which have been incurred as witnesses' or Pleader's fees; we think the section does not permit him to give any direction in respect of other costs which might be admissible under the much wider provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code as costs incidental to the proceedings. The penalties in the present case are not such expenses as are included in the provision of Section 148(3), and we are asked to hold that the Magistrate was entitled to deal with them by reason of Section 44(3) of the Stamp Act. We are unable to give to this section the effect suggested. It cannot, as we understand it, clothe the Magistrate to 'deal with costs other than those provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The case, Raiendra Narain Roy v. Mahomed Arzumand Khan 9 C.W.N. 887 is cited as authority for the view that costs not mentioned in Section 148(3) may be dealt with by the Magistrate, but we do not find that the question was there considered, nor is it clear that the costs dealt with were not covered by the language of the section.

3. We are then asked to hold that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in revision with the Magistrate's order, but the Magistrate's order was made without jurisdiction and in excess of the Magistrate's powers, and this Court will interfere, if necessary, in such a case.

4. We dismiss the appeal.


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