Skip to content


Kunjadam Alias Kunjadapadam Vs. Sha Hasthmal Babulal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1973CriLJ938
AppellantKunjadam Alias Kunjadapadam
RespondentSha Hasthmal Babulal
Excerpt:
- .....of 1970. the facts relevant to the present case are elaborately dealt with in the order of the sub divisional magistrate dated 3rd february 1972. he dismissed the petition crl. m.p. 353 of 1970 wherein the present petitioner (kunjadapadam) prayed for the return of m.os. 1 to 9 to him. the trial magistrate allowed the petition of one sha hasthmal babulal in crl. m.p. no. 531 of 1970 on his file. the present petitioner before this court obviously and directly came to the high court questioning the propriety of the order of the sub divisional magistrate dated 3.2.1972. he filed the petition under section 517. cr.p.c. which was dismissed. therefore, the proper forum for him is the court of appeal under section 520, cr.p.c. if he is aggrieved against the order of the sub divisional magistrate.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. This is an application to set aside the order of the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal passed in Crl. M.P. 531 of 1970, and 553 of 1970 in C.C. No. 313 of 1970. The facts relevant to the present case are elaborately dealt with in the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3rd February 1972. He dismissed the petition Crl. M.P. 353 of 1970 wherein the present petitioner (Kunjadapadam) prayed for the return of M.Os. 1 to 9 to him. The trial Magistrate allowed the petition of one Sha Hasthmal Babulal in Crl. M.P. No. 531 of 1970 on his file. The present petitioner before this Court obviously and directly came to the High Court questioning the propriety of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3.2.1972. He filed the petition under Section 517. Cr.P.C. which was dismissed. Therefore, the proper forum for him is the Court of Appeal under Section 520, Cr.P.C. if he is aggrieved against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3.2.1972. His present petition does not lie before the High Court without the petitioner exhausting his remedy under Section 520, Cr.P.C. The petitioner may go to the Court of Appeal for his remedy against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 3.2.1972. With these observations I dismiss this petition.

2. The whole matter is left open before the Court of Appeal.


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