High CourtsSingle Bench(1910) 03 MAD CK 0014

In Re: Palaniappa Asary and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 10 March 1910 · Citation: 6 Ind. Cas. 682

HON’BLE JUDGES
Miller, 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

16 paragraphs · 362 words

Miller, J.—The Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeding u/s 117 as nearly as practicable in the same way as u/s 242, Criminal Procedure

Code, had to state to the accused so to style them, the particulars of the matter against them and ask them if they could show cause why they

should not be required to execute bonds. He says that he made an order u/s 112--an order which appears in the form of a summons--and 1

understand that that order was explained to the accused.

2.

But the Sub-Divisional Magistrate instead of asking them if they were prepared to show cause why they should not be required to execute

bonds; put this question to them. Are you willing to execute the bond required, or do you wish for further enquiry? and they replied that they would

execute bonds. It seems to me that this was a misleading question not calculated to ascertain the truth of the information against the accused; they

were not asked whether the information was true or false and they did not admit its truth. By Section 117 the Magistrate is required to satisfy

himself by enquiry of the truth of the information before making an order for the execution of the bond and though it may be that the question put

u/s 242 is sufficient enquiry if it produces an answer, which shows that the information is true, no such answer was obtained in the present case..

The enquiry u/s 117 being irregular, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate must be set aside. It is not clear to me, and it is not necessary to

decide, that the procedure of the 2nd class Magistrate was irregular as the District Magistrate suggests; nor do I decide whether the District

Magistrate was right in his view of his powers u/s 125, Criminal Procedure Code. The decision to which he refers has, however, been overruled

by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, Nabu Sardar v. Emperor 24 C. 1; it is probable that there exists no reason for ordering further

proceedings and the Public Prosecutor does not ask for any order.

3.

The orders are set aside and the bonds cancelled.