Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-03-1961
Reported in : 1962CriLJ697; (1962)2MLJ256
..... magistrate in an enquiry held by virtue of the rules framed by government under the madras city municipal act, whereby a magistrate may decide as to the competency or otherwise of a candidate for municipal election. the reason for the decision is that the magistrate is not a court subject to ..... court within the meaning of that word in section 15 of the charter act and that he is in the position of a referee between the president of the municipal corporation and the candidate.3. under extradition act, it is only a magistrate, who would have the jurisdiction to enquire ..... the learned advocate for the petitioner that the additional district magistrate ii, tirunelveli, has no jurisdiction to enquire under section 3 of the extradition act.6. the second objection of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the additional district magistrate ii, tirunelveli, should have followed the ..... 1 of 1961 extraditing the petitioner for offences of criminal misappropriation of property and criminal breach of trust under section 3(4) of the extradition act.2. the learned advocate-general raised a preliminary objection that the order of the additional district magistrate ii, tirunelveli, could not be revised by ..... rudolf stallmann v. emperor i.l.r.(1911) cal. 547 where it was held that the high court has no jurisdiction under section 15 of the charter act to revise the proceedings of a magistrate acting under sections 3 and 4 of the extradition act. but this decision was distinguished in the .....Tag this Judgment!