PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. KANDASWAMI MUDALI
LAWS(MAD)-1952-1-14
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on January 17,1952

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Appellant
VERSUS
KANDASWAMI MUDALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.) This is an application by the learned Public Prosecutor for the correction of an incorrect procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Judge of Salem in S. C. No. 138 of 1950.
(2.) The accused Kandaswami Mudali who was tried for an offence under Section 302, Penal Code was found guilty but insane at the time of the commission of the act.
(3.) The learned Sessions Judge acquitted him under Section 84, Penal Code and made the following order: "In order to meet the requirements of Section 471, Criminal P. C. the accused will continue on bail on the same sureties who will retain the accused in their safe custody, and produce him before Court as and when required pending final orders of the Government." The learned Public Prosecutor rightly points out that the procedure followed by the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect. Before the amendment of Section 471, Criminal P. C., the Court acquitting a person on the ground of insanity had to report the case for the orders of the local Government. But Clauses (2) and (3) of the section were repealed by Act 4 of 1912 mainly with the object of relieving the local Government from the necessity of dealing with the case of such persons. The amended section requires only that the action taken by the Sessions Judge should be reported to the State Government. Secondly the words "detained in safe custody" in Section 471, Criminal P. C. have been judicially interpreted as not meaning "detained in the custody of friends and relatives." As Section 471, Criminal P. C. now stands it is essential that the accused should be detained in a place. The word "detained" denotes curtailment of liberty. It is obligatory on the Court to order detention in a place and not with a person. In a case where a Court in issuing an order under Section 471(1), Criminal P. C. ordered the accused to be detained in the custody of his father-in-law and brother it was held that the order could not be sustained and had to be set aside. See --'Public Prosecutor v. Nellayappa Pillai', 1948-1 Mad LJ 23.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.