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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 10

KING
Rajaratnam Pillai – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


ORDER

King, J.

1. The petitioner in this case has been prosecuted by the police on a charge sheet in which it is alleged that he had interfered with a certain station master in the exercise of his duty and in the course of that interference had slapped him on his cheek. The charge sheet specifically referred to his offence as falling simply within Section 121, Railways Act 9 of 1890, the maximum punishment for which is a fine of Rs. 100. The second class Magistrate of Tiruvadaimarudur on receiving this charge sheet took cognizance of the case as involving an offence under that section of the Railways Act, and as he was bound to do he proceeded with the trial of the case under the procedure laid down for the trial of summons cases. After he had taken the evidence of the prosecution in full, it occurred to him that evidence also established an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. for which offence the maximum punishment awardable is imprisonment for one year.

2. The trial of an offence under Section 323 must be held according to the procedure laid down for the trial of warrant cases and what the Magistrate did was to convert the proceedings before him from a summons case into a warrant cas



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