AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 161 wordsWe 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.
We disagree with the decision in Queen-Empress v. Tangavelu Chetti ILR Mad. 153.