TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Jurisdiction: High Court Bench Subordinate to Supreme Court for Perjury Cases</h1> <h3>M.S. Sheriff Versus The State Of Madras And Others.</h3> M.S. Sheriff Versus The State Of Madras And Others. - 1954 AIR 397, 1954 SCR 1229 Issues:1. Appealability of an order directing the filing of a complaint for perjury under section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Interpretation of the term 'subordinate court' within the meaning of section 195(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.3. Determining the precedence between civil suits for damages and criminal prosecutions arising from the same facts.Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case was the appealability of an order directing the filing of a complaint for perjury under section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Code and concluded that an appeal lies to the court to which the former court is subordinate within the meaning of section 195(3). The court clarified that a Division Bench of a High Court is considered subordinate to the Supreme Court for appealable decrees and sentences, allowing an appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of a Division Bench under section 476.2. The interpretation of the term 'subordinate court' within the meaning of section 195(3) was crucial in determining the appealability of the order. The court highlighted that the term 'subordinate' in this context does not have its ordinary meaning but is used as a term of art. The court emphasized that a Division Bench of a High Court is deemed subordinate to the Supreme Court for appealable decrees and sentences, enabling an appeal to the Supreme Court from such orders under section 476.3. Another significant issue addressed in the judgment was determining the precedence between civil suits for damages and criminal prosecutions arising from the same facts. The court held that criminal matters should be given precedence over civil suits. The court reasoned that criminal justice should be swift and sure, ensuring timely resolution of criminal proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of avoiding delays in criminal prosecutions to uphold public interest and ensure a fair and impartial trial. In this case, the court stayed the civil suits until the conclusion of the criminal prosecution under section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.Overall, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of expeditious criminal proceedings and the need to prioritize criminal matters over civil suits. The court's decision highlighted the significance of timely resolution of legal disputes and the efficient administration of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
