Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.15 seconds)Section 2 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
B.R. Ramanujachariar vs T.V. Kailasam Iyer on 8 January, 1925
1. The petitioner contends that the order of the 1st Class Bench Magistrate's Court, Conjeevaram, dated October 31, 1933, discharging the respondent is contrary to law. The petitioner admitted during his examination as P.W. No. 1 in that Court that "for the same offence the accused was charged in B.C. No. 378 of 1933", and the order of the Court dated March 3, 1933, which decided that case showed that the accused had been acquitted. The Court held that the accused was not liable to be tried again for the same offence in view of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, and the ruling reported in Ramanujachariar v. Kailasam Iyer 87 Ind. Cas. 969 : 48 M. 870 : (1932) M.W.N. 472 : 49 M.L.J. 386 : 26 Cr. L.J. 1049 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 1067 : 22 L.W. 736.
Moidi Beary vs The President, Taluk Board on 31 March, 1932
3. The question for decision is whether the if sue of a subsequent notice avoids the bar imposed by Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code. The question has been answered in the affirmative by Pakenham Walsh, J., in the two cases reported in Moidi Beary v. President Taluk Board of Mangalore 138 Ind. Cas. 488 : 36 L.W. 426 : (1932) M.W.N. 632 : Ind. Rul. (1932) Mad. 583 : 33 Cr. L.J. 626 : (1932) Cr. Cas. 652 : A.I.R. 1932 Mad.
1