IN RE: S SINAGURUNATHA PILLAY Vs. STATE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
IN RE: S SINAGURUNATHA PILLAY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In this case, the District Magistrate took cognizance as upon a complaint, and forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate for enquiry and disposal. The District Magistrate was not bound to examine the complainant on oath, before transferring the complaint to the Deputy Magistrate, and did not do so. But we think that the Deputy Magistrate, before issuing the search warrant under Section 96 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, should have examined the complainant on oath and we are supported in this by the observations in Queen-Empress v. Mahant of Tirupati 13 M. 18. We must, therefore, discharge the search warrant and direct the return of the articles, if any seized.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.