High CourtsSingle Bench(1954) 12 MAD CK 0001

In Re: Taxi Kannappa Mudaliar and others

Madras High Court · Decided on 10 December 1954

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mack, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.P. No. 1520 of 1954

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

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

Loading membership options…

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

15 paragraphs · 341 words

Mack, J.—The petitioner describes himself as the proprietor of the English Taxi Company of Umpherson Street, G.T. Madras. He seeks to

have revised an order by the District Magistrate, Chingleput, dismissing his petition to quash the proceedings instituted against him under S. 107

Crl. P. C. by the Inspector of Police, Chingleput, before the Ex. Officio First Class Magistrate, Chingleput. He was the first of seven respondents

against whom the order under S. 107 Crl. P.C. was issued on 3rd December 1953 alleging acts of violence on earlier dates. The ground which the

petitioner gave was that he was not a resident of Chingleput District and that, therefore, the First Class Magistrate had no jurisdiction. The District

Magistrate rejected this plea a following the decision in Varadarajulu Naidu v. Emperor 1934 M.W.N. Crl. 76=39 L.W.218. which is not in paint.

In that case, there was no dispute that the petitioner was within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate when the proceedings under S.

107 were initiated. In this case, the learned Public Prosecutor concedes that there is nothing to show that the petitioner, a permanent resident of

Madras, was in Chingleput on the date on which the proceedings were initialed. Under S. 107 (2) Crl. P. C., no proceedings shall be taken before

any Magistrate other than a Chief Presidency Magistrate or District Magistrate, unless both the person informed against and the place where the

breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended, are within the local limits of the Magistrate''s jurisdiction. The First Class Magistrate could

have had jurisdiction if, at the time the proceedings were initiated, the petitioner, although a resident of Madras, was in his jurisdiction. This not

being the case, it is only the District Magistrate who would have jurisdiction to institute and try these proceedings. The order of the learned District

Magistrate is set aside with the direction that he issues himself a fresh order under S. 107 Crl. P. C. If he considers it necessary and deals with it

according to law.