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

1925 Supreme(Mad) 591

V.SASTRI
Pedda Sanjivi Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Kondasari Koneri Reddi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Victor Murray Coutts Trotter, J.

1. The Chief Justice: The plaintiffs in this case brought a suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution and for defamation. The defendant presented a petition to the Deputy Magistrate of Adoni praying that the plaintiffs and some others should be bound over under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate on receipt of the petition sent it to the police for enquiry and report. The police reported, after enquiry and after hearing what the petitioner had to say, that there was no foundation for the allegations in the petition. Thereupon the Magistrate dismissed it and refused to take any action under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. This Civil suit is the outcome of those proceedings.

2. No difficulty arises with regard to the claim for malicious prosecution. The short and sufficient answer to such a claim is that the plaintiffs were not in fact prosecuted. But the claim for defamation raises a question of some little importance.

3. A Code like the Criminal Procedure Code which purports to provide for every conceivable situation labours under at least one disadvantage and that is that it is difficult, if not impossible, 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