Before Abdul Aziz, C. J.
BALU
versus
CROWN
Recommendation by the Sessions judge for quashing commit¬ment proceedings decided on 7th February, 1950.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 361-Accus¬ed understanding not language of Court-Committing Magis¬trate understanding language of accused-Question of comply¬ing with provisions of section does not arise.
Where the order of reference of the Sessions judge for quash¬ing a commitment under S. 215, Criminal Procedure Code is to the effect that the accused understands the language of the Court, but the Court does not understand the language of the accused. It means that the committing Magistrate did not stand in the neces¬sity of complying with the provisions of section 361 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. It was necessary for him to follow it only if the accused had not understood the proceedings in the Court of the committing Magistrate. !p. 181.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 215, 537-Non¬compliance with provisions of S. 361, Criminal Procedure Code – No ground for quashing commitment unless failure of justice occasioned thereby.
A. I. R. 1927 P. C. 44; A. I. R. 1930 Mad. 186 followed.