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

1952 Supreme(Mad) 98

SOMASUNDARAM
In re Ponnu Kudumban – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S. Mohan Kumaramangalam for Row and Reddy, for Petitioners; Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State.

Judgement

ORDER :- This is a petition to quash the committal of the 69 accused by the Special Assistant First Class Magistrate, Tirunelveli. 97 persons were charge-sheeted for offences under Ss. 120-B, 121-A, 153, 117, 148, 149, 201, 324, 326, 364, 302, 307, 395, 457 and 380, I.P.C.; and also for offences under Ss. 3 to 6, Indian Explosive Substances Act, S. 126, Indian Railways Act, S. 25(c), Indian Telegraph Act and S. 19(f), Indian Arms Act.

Of the persons charge-sheeted, ten were absconding and the enquiry therefore went on against the rest, the case against the absconders being separated. Of the 87, the learned Magistrate discharged 18 and committed the petitioners herein. They have been committed to take their trial, in the sessions-for offences under Ss. 120-B, 121-A, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 324, 326, 380, 397, 457, I.P.C. and Ss. 3 and 4, Indian Explosive Substances Act, S. 126, Indian Railways Act and S. 19(f), Indian Arms Act.

2. The main point that is taken to quash the committal is that the offences under Ss. 120-B and 121-A, I.P.C. were taken cognizance of even prior to the filing of the complaint under the orders of the local government. What happened in this case was 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