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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 213

V.RAO
Ramanathan Chettiyar – Appellant
Versus
K. Sivarama Subrahmanya Ayyar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

1. The accused was charged with misappropriation of paddy worth about Rs. 200. Summons was issued to him and he now moves the High Court and asks that the proceedings before the Magistrate should be quashed.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the High Court has no power to interfere with the proceedings of a Magistrate in a pending trial. Whether this contention is correct depends upon the interpretation of Sections 435, 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure. Code.

3. Under Section 435 the High Court is empowered to call for and examine the record of any proceedings before any inferior Criminal Court, situate within the local limits of its jurisdiction, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. The section thus does not deal merely with "finding, sentence or order" but with proceedings generally and the power of the High Court extends to calling for and examining the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the regularity of such proceedings.

4. Under Section 438, the Sessio














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