High CourtsSingle Bench(1912) 08 MAD CK 0012

Vaithinatha Iyer vs Kuppu Thevan

Madras High Court · Decided on 30 August 1912 · Citation: 17 Ind. Cas. 572

HON’BLE JUDGES
Napier, 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

6 paragraphs · 146 words

Napier, J.—The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is based on grounds which do not support it. There is no duty cast on a Magistrate

to adjourn a case because an application is being made to a superior Magistrate for transfer. That duty is confined to cases where the application is

to be to the High Court; Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the record that the requirements of Section 256 as to requiring

the accused to state whether he wishes to cross-examine any witness were complied with. There is no provision requiring the Magistrate to offer

an opportunity to the accused to have his witnesses summoned. It is his right to apply and he did not exercise it. I set aside the order for re-trial

and direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to take the appeal on his file and dispose of it according to law.