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
12 paragraphs · 244 wordsS. Subrahmania Ayyar, Officiating C.J.
In this case the order awarding compensation to the accused was reversed on the appeal preferred by the complaintant, but without notice
either to the accused or to the Public Prosecutor. There is no express provision directing that notice should be given to the former in a such a case.
But on the principle audi alteram partem the accused should have notice of the appeal in order that they may have an opportunity of supporting the
order passed in their favour.
As regards the view suggested by the Sessions Judge it would seem that, according to the letter of the law, notice to the officer, if any,
appointed by the local Government referred to in Section 422 of the Criminal Procedure Code is necessary even in such oases where the appeal is
not summarily rejected through there seems little reason for notice to that officer in a matter in which the accused only are really interested. Though
the point is somewhat doubtful it seems to me that the safer course in cases like this is to give notice to both the accused and the officer referred to
when the appeal is not summarily rejected. The order of the Appellate Court is set aside and the Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 1905 will be replaced
on the file of Sub-divisional First-class Magistrate, Dindigul, and disposed of according to law after notice to the accused and the Public
Prosecutor.