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

1941 Supreme(Mad) 51

MOCKETT
S. Kuppuswamy Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Subbaraya Chettiar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Mockett, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge of North Arcot directing that a complaint should be laid in the Court of the Magistrate having jurisdiction charging the petitioner with offences under Sections 199, 209, 210 and 420, Indian Penal Code. I think it is clear from the decision in Muniswami Mudaliar v. Rajaratnam Pillai (1922)43MLJ375 , that in sanctioning a prosecution the Court should consider not only whether there is a prima facie case but also whether it is, in the words of Coutts Trotter, J., in the above case, against the public interest to allow criminal proceedings to be instituted but which I respectfully suggest must also imply the consideration as to whether it is in the public interests they should be instituted. In this case the offence on which these complaints are based was committed between the 30th January, 1937, and 7th April, 1937. On the 9th April, 1937 the money said to have been obtained on 7th April, by means of the offences alleged was returned voluntarily by the petitioner to the Official Receiver. April 8 was a holiday. No action was taken by the present respondent until June, when an application is said t

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