Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)S.S. Venkataramana Aiyar vs Emperor on 21 September, 1917
6. It may be said that the distinction between illegalities and irregularities has the authority of their Lordships of the Privy Council expressed in Subramaniya Aiyar v. Emperor (1902) 25 Mad. 61, but I do not think their Lordships meant that Courts in this country were to ignore the provisions of the statute which governs the procedure of all Courts including Courts of Appeal.
Abdur Rahman vs Emperor on 31 May, 1916
I think what they meant was that there were irregularities so gross (they described such irregularities as illegalities) that it might be presumed from the existence of the irregularity itself that there must have been a failure of justice which would justify a Court in setting aside a sentence, finding or order : Abdur Rahman v. Emperor (1927) 14 A.I.R. P.C. 44. In the present case if the proceedings of the Magistrate were irregular I do not think it can be said that the irregularity was 'so gross that it must necessarily be inferred that the person accused was prejudiced upon the merits of his defence. I am unable to support the order of the learned Judge, I therefore set it aside and direct that the appeal shall be heard upon its merits.
Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 364 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 447 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1