Q. What are the equivalent citations for Ambakkagari Nagi Raddi vs Basappa ?

The equivalence citation are(1910) ILR 33 MAD 89 ; 1 IND. CAS. 79 ; LQ/MadHC/1909/31 ;

Ambakkagari Nagi Raddi Vs. Basappa On 09 February, 1909

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case Ambakkagari Nagi Raddi vs Basappa?

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE WALLIS , HONBLE MR. JUSTICE MUNRO

iDraf

Decision

Open iDraf

Ambakkagari Nagi Raddi v. Basappa

Ambakkagari Nagi Raddi
v.
Basappa

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

No. | 09-02-1909

[1] We think that it would be much better if in cases of appeal under Section 250, notice were given to the accused as he is the party prejudiced if the appeal is allowed and the order of compensation rescinded. Section 250(3), however, provides that there shall be an appeal from an order under the section as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate; and Section 422 provides explicitly for cases in which notice of appeal is to be given to the Public Prosecutor and the accused, but says nothing of any notice being given to persons in the position of the petitioners. In Emperor v. Palaniappavelan 29 M. 187 there was no notice to the Public Prosecutor which was clearly required by Section 250 read with Section 422 and the interference of the High Court in revision may be supported on this ground. But in this case we can see no illegality and we are not prepared to interfere. We may observe that if the appeal succeeds the petitioners will not be called on to refund, as Section 250(4) provides that the compensation shall not be paid to him until the appeal is decided. The petition is dismissed.

Advocates List

For the Appearing Parties -------

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WALLIS

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNRO

Eq Citation

(1910) ILR 33 MAD 89

1 IND. CAS. 79

LQ/MadHC/1909/31

HeadNote

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 250, 422 and 423 — Revision — Notice to accused — Held, it would be much better if in cases of appeal under S. 250, notice were given to accused as he is the party prejudiced if appeal is allowed and order of compensation rescinded — S. 250(3) provides that there shall be an appeal from an order under the section as if such complainant or informant had been convicted on a trial held by such Magistrate — S. 422 provides explicitly for cases in which notice of appeal is to be given to Public Prosecutor and accused, but says nothing of any notice being given to persons in the position of petitioners — In Emperor v. Palaniappavelan, AIR 1926 Mad 187 there was no notice to Public Prosecutor which was clearly required by S. 250 read with S. 422 and interference of High Court in revision may be supported on this ground — But in instant case no illegality was found and interference refused