High CourtsDivision Bench(1905) 10 MAD CK 0009

Emperor vs Karuppana Pillai and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 17 October 1905 · Citation: (1906) ILR (Mad) 188

HON’BLE JUDGES
Moore, J · Boddam, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 161 words
1.

We think that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate''s order in appeal directing the accused to pay the costs of the complainant is not illegal as it does

not amount to an enhancement of sentence. The order is made u/s 31 of the Court Fees Act, and is entirely irrespective of the penalty or sentence

passed under the Indian Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code. It has been held in Madan Mandul v. Satan Ghose ILR Cal 687 that it

forms no part of the sentence, and the Court Pees Act itself says that ""the Court shall in addition to the penalty imposed order it to be paid. It is not

therefore any part of the sentence, and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in appeal correcting the omission of the Court below to order it

to be paid does not amount to an enhancement of the sentence.

2.

We disagree with the decision in Queen-Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti ILR Mad. 153.