High CourtsSingle Bench

O.S. Venkatarama Iyer vs T.M. Soundararaja Iyyengar

Madras High Court · Decided on 6 December 1928 · Citation: 115 Ind. Cas. 64

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jackson, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 259
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

6 paragraphs · 116 words

Jackson, J.—Petitioner was discharged because of complainant''s absence. The complaint was then taken up again and the trial proceeded

and it is urged that this was illegal. If a Magistrate discharges an accused because of the non-appearance of the complainant u/s 259, Code of

Criminal Procedure, and subsequently excuses that non-appearance he must proceed de novo. None of the evidence recorded in the first can be

carried over to the second case.

2.

In this case no evidence had been recorded. The Magistrate was asked to proceed de novo, and his only irregularity lay in his failing to take a

sworn statement. I cannot see that accused was prejudiced by this irregularity and dismiss the petition.