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 · 174 wordsAbdur Rahim, J.—From the language of Section 31 of the Court Fees Act, it is clear that the order directing the accused who was
convicted of a non-cognizable offence to re-pay to the complainant the fee paid on the latter''s petition of complaint does not form part of the
sentence passed upon the accused for the offence, and in fact, the section itself says that the order levying the amount of Court fee is to be in
addition to any penalty that may be imposed for the offence itself. This view has been adopted in Emperor v. Karuppan Pillai 29 M. 188; 3 Cr.
L.J. 460 and in Madan Mandul v. Haran Ghose 20 C. 687. That being so, the Head Assistant Magistrate hearing the appeal from the conviction of
the accused u/s 352, Indian Penal Code, was not competent to set aside the order of the trying Magistrate u/s 31, Court Fees Act. The order of
the Head Assistant Magistrate is, therefore, reversed to that extent and that of the trying Magistrate restored.