Skip to content


Allaga Pillai Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Mad256
AppellantAllaga Pillai
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredMahomed Ksim v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....point raised in this criminal revision case is, that the magistrate who tried the case, the second class magistrate of thirumangalam, had not been empowered to try cases under the opium act, i of 1878, as required by section 3 of the act. we are referred to a notification of government published in the fort st. george gazette under date 4th june 1915 which empowers the second class magistrates mentioned therein by virtue of their office to try cases under the opium act. the second class magistrate of thirumangalam is mentioned in the list appended to the notification. we entertain not doubt whatever that this is a 'special empowering' of the person holding that office in virtue of his office within the meaning of section 39 of the criminal procedure code and would satisfy the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The only point raised in this Criminal Revision Case is, that the Magistrate who tried the case, the Second Class Magistrate of Thirumangalam, had not been empowered to try cases under the Opium Act, I of 1878, as required by Section 3 of the Act. We are referred to a Notification of Government published in the Fort St. George Gazette under date 4th June 1915 which empowers the Second Class Magistrates mentioned therein by virtue of their office to try cases under the Opium Act. The Second Class Magistrate of Thirumangalam is mentioned in the list appended to the Notification. We entertain not doubt whatever that this is a 'special empowering' of the person holding that office in virtue of his office within the meaning of Section 39 of the Criminal Procedure Code and would satisfy the requirements referred to by the learned Judges in Mahomed Ksim v. Emperor [1915] 2 L.W. 233.

2. The petition is dismissed.


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