Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.29 seconds)Section 435 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Nataraja Pillai vs Rangaswami Pillai And Three Ors. on 17 January, 1923
5. Another argument urged by him is that, under Section 6 of the Code, the Criminal Courts in British India are divided into five groups and the 3rd, 4th and 5th groups are Magistrates of the first, second and third classes, but this does not mean that a Magistrate is always a Court whatever he is doing. The section only means that among the Criminal Courts in British India are Magistrates but this does not necessarily mean that the Magistrates are always Courts. It can only mean that when they act judicially they are Criminal Courts. Section 6 is not inconsistent with the idea that Magistrates may sometimes act in executive and administrative capacity and not as a Court. It is unnecessary to refer to cases prior to Nataraja Pillai v. Rangaswatni Pillai (1923) I.L.R. 47 M. 56 : 44 M.L.J. 328 The decision of the Privy Council in Clarke v. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowtdhry (1912) L.R. 39 I.A. 163 : I.L.R. 39 C. 953 : 23 M.L.J. 32 (P.C.) does not help the petitioner. It only shows that in some parts of the Code the words--Courts and Magistrates--are used interchangeably and that under Section 96 a Magistrate issuing search warrants was acting as a Court; but this does not conclude the matter as to Section 144. Some of the decisions brought to my notice are decisions in which no objection was raised and the point was not considered and, therefore, they are of no value.
Section 6 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Nataraja Pillai vs Rengasami Pillai And Ors. on 3 December, 1923
It is true that Mr. Ranganadha Aiyar in his Criminal Procedure Code expresses the opinion that the decision in Nataraja Pillai v. Raxngaszmmi Pillai (1923) I.L.R. 47 M. 56 : 44 M.L.J. 328 is no longer law on account of the amendment, but the. correctness of this opinion is questioned by the learned vakil for the respondent and I have to consider the point.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Meenakshisundara Mudaliar Alias ... vs Rathnasami Pillai on 2 April, 1918
3. Now, are the consequences exactly the same in the case of Section 144? At first sight one may think it is so; but it seems to me that as to Section 144, Clause (3), Section 435 was somewhat redundant and only made matters clear. Even without it, it is doubtful whether Section 435 applies. There is nothing in Section 144 to indicate that the Magistrate acting under that section is a Court as in the case of Section 145. Dr. Swaminathan, appearing for the petitioner, argues that the decision in Natwaja Pillai v. Rangaszuami Pillai (1923) I.L.R 47 M. 56 : 44 M.L.J. 328 purports to follow the Full Bench decision in Sundram v. The Queen (1883) I.L.R. 6 M. 203 (F.B.)
Sundram Chetti And Ors. And Ponnusami ... vs The Queen on 9 January, 1883
3. Now, are the consequences exactly the same in the case of Section 144? At first sight one may think it is so; but it seems to me that as to Section 144, Clause (3), Section 435 was somewhat redundant and only made matters clear. Even without it, it is doubtful whether Section 435 applies. There is nothing in Section 144 to indicate that the Magistrate acting under that section is a Court as in the case of Section 145. Dr. Swaminathan, appearing for the petitioner, argues that the decision in Natwaja Pillai v. Rangaszuami Pillai (1923) I.L.R 47 M. 56 : 44 M.L.J. 328 purports to follow the Full Bench decision in Sundram v. The Queen (1883) I.L.R. 6 M. 203 (F.B.)