SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1914 Supreme(Cal) 340

Balchand – Appellant
Versus
Tarak Nath Sadhu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Chaudhuri, J. - I have taken some time to consider this matter, having regard to the way in which the matter was placed before me by the accused persons. Under the rules of the Small Cause Court the Registrar of that Court is the officer who is entitled to decide the question of service of summons, and in so doing, he is entitled to take evidence, and these proceedings are certainly in the nature of judicial proceedings, and therefore the matter strictly arises within his jurisdiction. It cannot be said that he was acting in a ministerial capacity, and I find from the petition itself that, so far as the proceedings relating to the services of summons are concerned, the whole of such proceedings were carried on before him. He makes out a list after the service is ready and the cases then go before the Judges. In this matter he granted the sanction upon an application made by the Public Prosecutor who was apparently moved by the Chief Judge of the Court to make such an application. An objection was taken that in granting such sanction the persons upon whose statements the Registrar relied were not examined on oath. No doubt the statements as taken down do not show that they w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top