Skip to content


Manikkonda Lingayya and anr. Vs. King Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad192
AppellantManikkonda Lingayya and anr.
RespondentKing Emperor
Excerpt:
- orderwallace, j.1. the refusal of the sub divisional magistrate to entertain the appeal unless a vakalat was filed, although a memo, of appearance was put in was clearly wrong see in re muni reddi [1909] 5 m.l.t. 290 and contrary to rule 161 of criminal rules of practice, in any case the appeal had been already entertained by a proper court and was then transferred to him for disposal.2. the order of the sub divisional magistrate is set aside. he is directed to admit and hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

Wallace, J.

1. The refusal of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to entertain the appeal unless a Vakalat was filed, although a memo, of appearance was put in was clearly wrong See In re Muni Reddi [1909] 5 M.L.T. 290 and contrary to Rule 161 of Criminal Rules of Practice, In any case the appeal had been already entertained by a proper Court and was then transferred to him for disposal.

2. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is set aside. He is directed to admit and hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.


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