The question before us is in effect whether Sect. 350 (l)(a), Criminal Procedure Code, can be applied to proceedings in a warrant case, before charge has been framed. That is, in effect whether at that stage the proceeding is not a trial, but merely an enquiry. The authorities Narayanaswamy Naidu v. Emperor (I.L.R., 32 Mad., 220) [LQ/MadHC/1909/26] ; Sriramulu v. Veerasa Lingam (I.L.R., 38 Mad., 585) and Venkatachinnayya v. King Emperor (I.L.R., 43 Mad., 511 [LQ/MadHC/1920/62] (F.B.)) are in favour of the view that such a proceeding is merely an enquiry; and we see no reason for departure from this series of considered decisions, two of them given by a Full Bench. There is therefore no legal objection to the Magistrates order and the revision petition must be dismissed.
S.S. Petition dismissed.
Are you looking for a
legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a
legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and
Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.
In Re. Ramanathan Chettiar v.
In Re. Ramanathan Chettiar v.
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Criminal Revision No. 115 Of 1922 Criminal Revision No. 106 Of 1922) | 15-08-1922
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OLDFIELD
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESAM
Eq Citations
- (1923) ILR 46 MAD 719
- 71 IND. CAS. 608
- AIR 1923 MAD 660
- LQ/MadHC/1922/196
Head Note
Constitution of India — Art. 136 — Revision — Revision petition against Magistrate's order of remand — Held, authorities are in favour of view that proceedings before framing charge are merely an enquiry — No legal objection to Magistrate's order and revision petition dismissed
