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
17 paragraphs · 377 wordsSpencer, J.—This Criminal Revision Case has been admitted on the question of the validity of the appellate Court''s order to pay the
complainant''s Court-fees u/s 31 of the Court-fees Act.
At the hearing an objection has been raised that the appellate Court''s judgment is defective u/s 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because
the Joint Magistrate did not discuss the bearing of the evidence of each prosecution witness on the guilt of each accused. This is not one of the
grounds stated in the revision petition and I do not find any substance in it.
The order to collect Court-fees from the accused passed. by the appellate Court is not an enhancement of the sentence under the authority of
Vemuri Seshanna ILR (1902) M 421. The case in Queen-Empress v. Thangavelu Chetti ILR (1898) M 153 was decided by a single Judge in
September, 1898. The head note to the report indicates that it was a decision under the Code of 1882. A which had not the same provision u/s
423(d) for passing incidental or consequential orders in appeal that was introduced by Act V of 1898. I hold that the making of an order u/s 31 of
the Court-fees Act does not ordinarily amount to an enhancement of sentence but may be made as an incidental order to bring the judgment into
conformity with the law. Section 31 of the Court-fees Act provides that all fees ordered to be repaid under this section shall be recoverable "" as if
they were fines,"" but does not thereby make them part of the sentence. In Queen-Empress v. Thangavelu Chetti ILR (1898) M 153 the Assistant
Magistrate who tried the case made an order for a part of the Court-fees claimed by the complainant to be repaid out of the fine collected as
sentence and it was for this reason that Justice Moore was impelled to treat the Assistant Magistrate''s order to pay the fee as an integral part of
the sentence, and to regard the Deputy Magistrate''s order to pay an increased amount as an enhancement of the sentence. I do not find any such
objection to exist In the present case to the Joint Magistrate''s order.
The Criminal Revision Petition is therefore dismissed.