Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.

Madras High Court
Emperor vs Maddipatla Subbarayadu on 2 October, 1908
Equivalent citations: 4 Ind Cas 1130 a
Author: A Rahim
Bench: A Rahim


Abdur Rahim, J.

1. From the language of Section 31 of the Court Fees Act, it is clear that the order directing the accused who was convicted of a non-cognizable offence to re-pay to the complainant the fee paid on the latter’s petition of complaint does not form part of the sentence passed upon the accused for the offence, and in fact, the section itself says that the order levying the amount of Court fee is to be in addition to any penalty that may be imposed for the offence itself. This view has been adopted in Emperor v. Karuppan Pillai 29 M. 188; 3 Cr. L.J. 460 and in Madan Mandul v. Haran Ghose 20 C. 687. That being so, the Head Assistant Magistrate hearing the appeal from the conviction of the accused under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, was not competent to set aside the order of the trying Magistrate under Section 31, Court Fees Act. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate is, therefore, reversed to that extent and that of the trying Magistrate restored.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

102 queries in 0.158 seconds.