E THIMMIAH Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision case has been admitted on the question of the validity of the appellate Court's order to pay the complainant's Court fees under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act.

(2.) At the hearing an objection has been raised that the appellate Courts judgment is defective under Section 367 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure because the Joint Magistrate did not discuss the hearing of the evidence of each prosecution witness of the guilt of each accused. This is not one of the grounds stated in the revision petition and I do not find any substance in it.

(3.) The order to collect Court fees from the accused passed by the appellate Court is not an enhancement of the sentence under the authority of Vemuri Seshanna; In re (1904) 26 Mad. 421. The case in Queen-Empress V/s. Tangavelu Chetti (1900) 22 Mad. 153 was decided by a single Judge in September 1898. The headnote to the report indicates that it was a decision under the Code of 1882 which bad not the same provision under Section 423(D) for passing incidental or consequential orders in appeal that was introduced by Act V of 1898.