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
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.
S.S. Petition dismissed.
Advocates List
For the Petitioner Dr. S. Swaminadan, A. Narasimha Aiyar, Advocates. For the Crown J.C. Adam, Public Prosecutor.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OLDFIELD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESAM
Eq Citation
(1923) ILR 46 MAD 719
71 IND. CAS. 608
AIR 1923 MAD 660
LQ/MadHC/1922/196
HeadNote
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
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.