High CourtsDivision Bench(1910) 09 MAD CK 0008

In Re: S. Sinagurunatha Pillay

Madras High Court · Decided on 20 September 1910

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sankaran Nair, J · Munro, 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

5 paragraphs · 113 words
1.

In this case, the District Magistrate took cognizance as upon a complaint, and forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and

disposal. The District Magistrate was not bound to examine the complainant on oath, before transferring the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate,

and did not do so. But we think that the Deputy Magistrate, before issuing the search warrant u/s 96 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure,

should have examined the complainant on oath and we are supported in this by the observations in Queen-Empress v. Mahant of Tirupati 13 M.

18.

We must, therefore, discharge the search warrant and direct the return of the articles, if any seized.