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


Madras High Court
In Re: Tirumana Goundan And Anr. vs Unknown on 28 February, 1929
Equivalent citations: 116 Ind Cas 366
Bench: Waller, K Pandalai


ORDER

1. We concur in the view expressed in Forbes v. Muhammad Ali Haider Khan 90 Ind, Cas. 308 : 53 C. 46 : 42 C.L.J. 131 : 26 Cr. L.J. 1524 : A.I.R. 1925 Cal. 1246 and Khushal Jeram v. Emperor 97 Ind. Cas. 671 : 50 B. 680 : 28 Bom. L.R. 1026 27 Cr. L.J. 1151: A.I.R. 1926 Bom. 534, that failure to comply with a mandatory provision of law is not necessarily an illegality that vitiates the proceedings. The question is whether the failure has been prejudicial to the accused. We see no reason to conclude that it has been prejudicial in this instance.

2. The petition is dismissed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.199 seconds.