High CourtsDivision Bench

Nambia Pillai vs Sudalaimuthu Nadan and Others

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 February 1923 · Citation: AIR 1923 Mad 595 : 76 Ind. Cas. 872 : (1923) 17 LW 570 : (1923) 44 MLJ 642

HON’BLE JUDGES
Spencer, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 17
Ask AI about this case

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

21 paragraphs · 404 words

Spencer, J.—It is argued on the authority of the decision of Ayling J. in Criminal Revision Case No. 328 of 1922 that the District Magistrate

had no power to stay the trial of a Criminal Case in the Court of a Subordinate Magistrate in his District.

2.

It is undeniable that the High Court is under the Government of India Act invested with powers of superintendence over all the Courts of justice

in the Presidency and it has been held in Anna Ayyar v. Emperor ILR (1906) Mad. 226, that those powers include a power to direct ""the stay of

proceedings in such Courts.

3.

Section 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which declares all Magistrates and Benches of Magistrates in any District to be Subordinate to

the District Magistrate of that District who is invested with powers to make rules and give special orders and Rule 122 of the Criminal Rules of

Practice, which treats of his powers of supervision over their Magisterial work, suggest that a District Magistrate has wide powers of

superintendence over his subordinate Magistrates which might be considered to justify special directions being issued by him to stop or go on with

particular proceedings pending before them.

4.

I therefore do not wish to rest order on the ground that the District Magistrate''s order was entirely without authority but on general reasons of

expediency.

5.

As pointed out in Raj Kumari Debi v. Bama Sundari Debi 63 I. C. 825. the plaintiff in a Civil suit has command of it and can within certain limits

protract its disposal at his pleasure.

6.

It is not known when the suit instituted by Respondents will be disposed of and when judgment is given there may be an appeal and even a

second appeal. It is undesirable that this complaint of rioting and mischief should remain undisposed of till the Civil Court has pronounced on the

question of title, especially when it is realised that the Criminal Court will in any case have to decide questions of possession etc., upon which the

judgment of the Civil Court will not operate as resjudicata. The Magistrate will have to decide the question of the Criminality of the acts alleged to

have been committed by the accused for himself.

7.

I set aside the District Magistrate''s order and direct that the Sub. Magistrate of Nanguneri do proceed with the Criminal case pending before

him.