The Collector of Kristna Vs. Gajjala Sreeramamoorthy - Court Judgment
|Appellant||The Collector of Kristna|
|Cases Referred||Gayamond Bala Dassee v. Butto Kristo Bairagee|
.....or for all future selection depending on whether the acquittal is honourable or otherwise. -- t.n. district police act, 1859. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of competence. it is challenged only on the ground that it is violative of articles..........were sold in execution and government applied for payment of rs. 229-11-0 out of the sale proceeds and obtained a cheque for that amount. plaintiff applied for re-deposit inasmuch as he had brought the property to sale, and the district munsif has allowed his application. hence this revision petition. the court fees form a crown debt and the crown is entitled to precedence in payment of this debt over all creditors : gayamond bala dassee v. butto kristo bairagee (1906) 33 cal. 1040. the fact that plaintiff brought the property to sale is immaterial. the petition is allowed and the order of the district judge is reversed. costs will be paid to the petitioner throughout.
1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 26 of 1920 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Ellore sued defendant in forma-pauperis. The decree directed defendant to pay Rs. 250 to Government being pauper stamp duty. Defendant's properties were sold in execution and Government applied for payment of Rs. 229-11-0 out of the sale proceeds and obtained a cheque for that amount. Plaintiff applied for re-deposit inasmuch as he had brought the property to sale, and the District Munsif has allowed his application. Hence this revision petition. The Court fees form a Crown debt and the Crown is entitled to precedence in payment of this debt over all creditors : Gayamond Bala Dassee v. Butto Kristo Bairagee (1906) 33 Cal. 1040. The fact that plaintiff brought the property to sale is immaterial. The petition is allowed and the order of the District Judge is reversed. Costs will be paid to the petitioner throughout.