The Queen Vs. Bojjigan

The Queen vs Bojjigan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 24, 1882

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/774348

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/774348
Court: Chennai
Judge: Innes and ;Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 24, 1882
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Lawful custody, Escape from - Indian Penal Code, Section 224--Custody of Village Officers. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Queen

Respondent

Bojjigan

Legal References

Cases Referred: The Queen v. M. Sins
Reported In: (1882)ILR5Mad22

Excerpt

lawful custody, escape from - indian penal code, section 224--custody of village officers. - innes and muttusami ayyar, jj.1. the second-class magistrate convicted the accused of theft and escape from lawful custody.2. the sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment awarded for teh latter offence must be set aside.3. the custody of the fifth and sixth witnesses--a talyari and a totti respectively--from which the prisoner is said have escaped was not a lawful custody, as the offence of theft was not committed in the presence of either of them (criminal procedure code, section 1051), and they are not police officers.4. the queen v. m. sins/p>order accordingly.1. section 105 - any private person may arrest any person who, in his view, eommits a non-bailable and cognizable offence.

Full Judgment

Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

1. The Second-class Magistrate convicted the accused of theft and escape from lawful custody.

2. The sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment awarded for teh latter offence must be set aside.

3. The custody of the fifth and sixth witnesses--a Talyari and a Totti respectively--from which the prisoner is said have escaped was not a lawful custody, as the offence of theft was not committed in the presence of either of them (Criminal Procedure Code, section 1051), and they are not Police officers.

4. The Queen v. M. Sins/p>

Order accordingly.

1. Section 105 - Any private person may arrest any person who, in his view, eommits a non-bailable and cognizable offence.

Same Parties The Queen vs Bojjigan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Innes and ;Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

Criminal