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

1949 Supreme(Mad) 239

SOMASUNDARAM
Chebrole Narayana – Appellant
Versus
Chendra Rudrayya – Respondent


Advocates:
V.T. Rangaswami Ayyangar and R. Santanam for Petitioner.
C. Rama Rao for Respondent.
The Public Prosecutor (V.L. Ethiraj) for the Crown.

Order

On a private complaint the petitioner was prosecuted for cheating an offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution witnesses were examined and when the case was posted for hearing, the complainant was absent and the trial Magistrate discharged the accused under section 259, Criminal Procedure Code. In revision the Additional District Magistrate set aside the order of discharge on the ground that though the offence may be lawfully compounded, still as, the offence required permission of the Court for compounding (vide section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code) and as such permission was not granted, it was not open to the Magistrate to discharge this petitioner.

The Additional District Magistrate is wrong in thinking that in cases where offences may be lawfully compounded, the accused cannot be discharged under section 259, Criminal Procedure Code, without giving permission for compounding. What the section says is that in case, where the offence may be lawfully compounded, the Magistrate may act in the manner mentioned in section 259. The offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, in one which under section 345 may be compounded with the permissio




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