![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Sep 03, 2008 ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
-
Madurai
MADURAI: Judicial officers such as Magistrates and District Judges enjoy immunity of office and hence they could not be prosecuted for erroneous convictions/sentences imposed by them, the Madras High Court has ruled. Dismissing a writ petition filed in the Madurai Bench, Justice K. Chandru said that the only course available for the aggrieved persons was to complain to the Chief Justice of the High Court against judicial officers who had acted injudiciously. The petitioner had sought for a direction to the Home Secretary to grant sanction under Section 197(1) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code to prosecute two judicial officers and a police Inspector for sentencing him in a false criminal case. Remedy“If the petitioner feels that he was maliciously prosecuted, the remedy open to him is to sue the persons who are in charge of the investigation and prosecution and not judicial officers who determine the case of the petitioner. “At times, the courts may commit bona fide mistakes. For that very purpose, there is a hierarchy of courts to correct such errors committed by the lower judiciary,” the Judge said, pointing out that even the petitioner had been acquitted by the High Court. “It is not open to the petitioner to seek, solely on the ground that his revision has been allowed by the High court and therefore, necessarily the lower judiciary must face the music for having recorded a wrong conviction,” Mr. Justice Chandru said. “False case”Arguing the case in person, J. Selvaraj of Kanyakumari said that the police registered a false case against him under Sections 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of Rs. 50) and 506 part II (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code in 1997. A Judicial Magistrate convicted and sentenced him to one year simple imprisonment. On appeal, an Additional District Judge in 1998 confirmed his conviction but modified the sentence to just four days already undergone by him. However, the High Court in 1999 acquitted the petitioner. Aggrieved by the conduct of the judicial officers as well as the police, the petitioner filed a complaint against them in a Human Rights Court, which directed him to move the Magistrate concerned. A Magistrate at Ambasamudram in 2007 dismissed the complaint for want of government sanction to prosecute the officers.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2008, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|