High CourtsSingle Bench

Nanjappa Goundan vs Periakkal

Madras High Court · Decided on 8 December 1950 · Citation: AIR 1951 Mad 772(1)

HON’BLE JUDGES
Govinda Memon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 253, 435
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision Case No. 573 and Cri. Revision Petition No. 546 of 1950

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

1 paragraphs · 180 words

Govinda Memon, J.—The learned Addl. Ses. J. has no jurisdiction, in setting aside an order of discharge, to direct that a charge be framed against the present petr. All that the Ses. J. has got the right to do is to direct a further enquiry, so that the Ct. which hears the case afresh has to take evidence & come to a conclusion as to whether there is enough evidence to frame a charge or not. If it is a case which is to be tried exclusively by a Sessions Ct., then the learned Addl. Ses. J. would be justified in framing a charge & directing a committal. But this is not a case exclusively triable by a Sessions Ct., & the direction to frame a charge is, therefore, not legal: vide Karuppiah Ambalam Vs. Andiappan Servai, . On the merits too, I do not think that this is a case in which a further enquiry is necessary. The order directing a further enquiry is set aside & the order of discharge by the Ct. of first instance is restored.