Issue
Reasoning
Pregada Balanagu
v.
Krosuru Kotayya
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Criminal Revision No. 872 Of 1936 Criminal Revision No. 790 Of 1936) | 17-03-1937
King, J
[1] I do not think the Sub divisional Magistrate was right in holding that the sanction of Government was necessary in this case under Section 197, Criminal P.C. In sending his report under Section 45, the Village Munsif is not acting in his capacity as Magistrate, being there called specifically a Village Headman, nor is he a public servant removable only by or with the sanction of a Local Government: see Pichai Pillai v. Balasundara Mudali AIR 1935 Mad 442 [LQ/MadHC/1935/62] . But the Sub-divisional Magistrate might well have dismissed the complaint under Section 203 after putting a few questions to the complainant. It is a complaint filed five months after the police investigation was over, and a mere glance at it is enough to show that the complainant has made no serious attempt at stating any facts which if proved in evidence would support a conviction. In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere and dismiss this petition.
[1] I do not think the Sub divisional Magistrate was right in holding that the sanction of Government was necessary in this case under Section 197, Criminal P.C. In sending his report under Section 45, the Village Munsif is not acting in his capacity as Magistrate, being there called specifically a Village Headman, nor is he a public servant removable only by or with the sanction of a Local Government: see Pichai Pillai v. Balasundara Mudali AIR 1935 Mad 442 [LQ/MadHC/1935/62] . But the Sub-divisional Magistrate might well have dismissed the complaint under Section 203 after putting a few questions to the complainant. It is a complaint filed five months after the police investigation was over, and a mere glance at it is enough to show that the complainant has made no serious attempt at stating any facts which if proved in evidence would support a conviction. In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere and dismiss this petition.
Advocates List
For the Appearing Parties Messrs. V. Rajagopalachari, C. Vasudevan, Messrs. S. Vepa, J. Krishnamurthi, Advocates & The 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 KING
Eq Citation
AIR 1937 MAD 578
LQ/MadHC/1937/102
HeadNote
CRIMINAL LAW — Village Munsif — Report under S. 45, CrPC — Not acting in his capacity as Magistrate, nor is he a public servant removable only by or with sanction of Local Government — Sanction of Government not necessary — But complaint filed five months after police investigation was over, and a mere glance at it is enough to show that complainant has made no serious attempt at stating any facts which if proved in evidence would support a conviction
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
