Skip to content


Muthuswami Nadan and anr. Vs. Kalinga Muppan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in36Ind.Cas.158
AppellantMuthuswami Nadan and anr.
RespondentKalinga Muppan
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 147, 148--right of way, dispute as to--local enquiry, report on--statements of parties, order on--jurisdiction. - .....the code of criminal procedure.2. under section 148 he directed a subordinate magistrate to hold a local enquiry. that magistrate made the enquiry and submitted his report and, as provided by the section, it was read as evidence in the case.3. it is now alleged that the deputy magistrate acted without jurisdiction because he acted on the sub-magistrate's report and decided the case.4. the parties filed their written statements which were admitted and considered, and it does not appear that they tendered any evidence which the magistrate refused. i am unable to see why it should be held that he acted without jurisdiction when his decision was based on the materials in the case. it is clear from the sub-magistrate's report that he did not go beyond the scope of the local enquiry and decide.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Spencer, J.

1. The Deputy Magistrate took cognisance of a dispute as to a right of way-falling under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Under Section 148 he directed a Subordinate Magistrate to hold a local enquiry. That Magistrate made the enquiry and submitted his report and, as provided by the section, it was read as evidence in the case.

3. It is now alleged that the Deputy Magistrate acted without jurisdiction because he acted on the Sub-Magistrate's report and decided the case.

4. The parties filed their written statements which were admitted and considered, and it does not appear that they tendered any evidence which the Magistrate refused. I am unable to see why it should be held that he acted without jurisdiction when his decision was based on the materials in the case. It is clear from the Sub-Magistrate's report that he did not go beyond the scope of the local enquiry and decide matters that he had no jurisdiction to decide.

5. Secondly, it is urged that the enquiry was not instituted within three months of the last exercise of the right of way. This objection was not raised in the Magistrate's Court and I cannot admit it on a mere comparison of dates on the papers exhibited in the case.

6. For these reasons the petition must be dismissed.


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