Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)Section 2 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Venkatroya Gownden vs The Very Rev. N. Rondy on 27 July, 1910
In Venkatroya Gownden v. Very Rev. N. Rondy 7 Ind. Cas. 343 : 8 M.L.T. 180 : (1910) M.W.N. 354 : 11 Cr. L.J. 449, the judgment (of Munro and Abdur Rahim, JJ.), which is a short one, is as follows: "The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate, dated the 14th May 1910, was passed ex parte. Such an order can only be passed in cases of emergency or when there is no time to serve notice. Vide Section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate does not disclose the existence of such emergency or that there was not sufficient time to serve notice. The Tahsildar himself in his letter of the 12th June recommended that before any orders were issued, evidence should be formally recorded; and the record does not, in our opinion, disclose any such emergency as called for an ex parte order. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Head Assistant Magistrate." If I may say so with respect, I entirely agree with this decision. In the present case, the petitioner is a High Court Vakil residing in Erode itself and known well to the Deputy Magistrate, and hence it cannot at all be said that the circumstances did not admit of the serving of a notice upon a person against whom the order is directed; and it seems to be further improbable, speaking prima facie, that the emergency of a riot or an affray could not brook a delay of even 12 hours between 9 P.M. on the 1st September when the order was served and 9 A. M. on the following day (even if it was a Sunday) when the Vakil might have been asked to show cause.
Sundram Chetti And Ors. And Ponnusami ... vs The Queen on 9 January, 1883
I must here remark, as has been remarked in several cases [including Sundram Chetti v. Queen 6 M. 203 : 2 Weir 77 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.)
Section 141 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Govindachetti And Ors. vs Perumal Chetty And Anr. on 1 September, 1913
420 and Govindachetti v. Perumal Chetty 21 Ind. Cas. 381 : 25 M.L.J. 370 : 14 Cr. L.J. 589] that it is the duty of the Magistrate to support lawful acts as far as possible. The flying of a Home Rule flag is a perfectly legal act and if unreasonable people threatened to commit a breach of the peace, the Magistrate ought not to treat it as a case of emergency unless, through temporary circumstances, the Magistrate had no sufficient Police or other force at his command to prevent an immediate breach of the peace and unless he is unable to find out the person threatening to commit a breach of the peace or at least the leaders of such persons (if they are numerous) so as to bind them over to keep the peace. I am clearly of opinion that "the material facts" to be set out under Section 141, Criminal Procedure Code, in a case like the present do include, when an ex parte order is purported to be passed, the circumstances showing why the Magistrate was temporarily unable to prevent a breach of the peace by intending peace-breakers.