VENKATARAMA AIYAR Vs. KRISHNA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised at the hearing of the Revision Petition is whether the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate setting aside the award of compensation to the accused by the Kumbakonum Bench of Magistrates was bad for want of notice to the accused.

(2.) It was argued in the first place that Chapter XXI of the Criminal Procedure Code does not apply to appeals against orders under Section 250 and therefore that Section 422 which directs that notice of appeals should merely be given to the officer appointed by Government to receive notices of appeals does not govern the case; in the second place, that in the absence of any provision for notice the maxim Audi alteram partem should govern the proceedings.

(3.) The first argument will not in my opinion hold good, for the reason that Section 250 does not declare what the powers of an appellate Court are in disposing of appeals under Clause 3 of the section and it is necessary to invoke the aid of Section 423 for this purpose. Section 439 illustrates the difference in this respect between Sections 250 & 195, which has been held to be a self-contained section.