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

1922 Supreme(Mad) 231

JACKSON
Annai Errappa – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. This is a reference from the learned Sessions Judge of Chittoor. In four appeals the Joint Magistrate of Chandragiri has ordered a retrial of the appellant because certain witnesses at the original trial gave evidence in English and their evidence was not translated to the appellant as required by Section 361, Civil P.C.

2. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in my opinion was right in holding that the code lays down that such translation should be made and with all respect I do not agree with the ruling in Hari Narayan Chandra v. Emperor A.I.R. 1928 Cal. 27 that paras. 1 and 2, Section 361 are mutually exclusive, An accused person is often in a much better position than his pleader to follow the drift of the evidence and it is obvious that the ought to be kept informed of what is being said. But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate misdirects himself when he observes that the irregularity cannot be cured under Section 537, Criminal P.C. No doubt after Subramania Ayyar v. Emperor [1902] 25 Mad. 61 an idea prevailed that Section 637, Criminal P.C., did not apply to the mandatory provisions of the code, although there is nothing in the section itself to give it such a restricted

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