Skip to content


C.S. Rajagopala Iyer Vs. Palaniswami Goundan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1935Mad319; 159Ind.Cas.692
AppellantC.S. Rajagopala Iyer
RespondentPalaniswami Goundan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195 - magistrate proceeding to spot to prevent breach of peace--complaint against magistrate for acts committed in excess of powers--necessity of sanction of local government. - .....purpose of preventing a breach of the peace which was apprehended. it follows that what he did or is said to have done after reaching the place where the breach of the peace was feared was done in his official capacity as a magistrate and in the performance of what he considered to be his duty as a magistrate. even if he exceeded his powers and even if he thereby committed any offence, no complaint in respect of any such offence, could be entertained by toy court without the sanction of the local government. the joint magistrate's action in taking cognizance of the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner in this case in the absence of sanction by the local government is contrary to law, and the proceedings now pending before him in this case are quashed so far as the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This application is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor who concedes that the petitioner must be deemed to have acted in his official capacity as a Sub-Magistrate when the acts alleged against him in the complaint were committed. It is abundantly clear that this must have been the case. The Sub-Magistrate went to the spot at the request of the Receiver appointed by the Court as the Sub-Inspector of Police was away and the Sub-Magistrate took a small Police force with him for the purpose of preventing a breach of the peace which was apprehended. It follows that what he did or is said to have done after reaching the place where the breach of the peace was feared was done in his official capacity as a Magistrate and in the performance of what he considered to be his duty as a Magistrate. Even if he exceeded his powers and even if he thereby committed any offence, no complaint in respect of any such offence, could be entertained by toy Court without the sanction of the Local Government. The Joint Magistrate's action in taking cognizance of the offences said to have been committed by the petitioner in this case in the absence of sanction by the Local Government is contrary to law, and the proceedings now pending before him in this case are quashed so far as the petitioner, i.e., the Sub-Magistrate, is concerned.


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