Kunhussa Vs. the Queen

Kunhussa vs The Queen

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 28, 1882

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/774628

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/774628
Court: Chennai
Judge: Innes and ;Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 28, 1882
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Indian Penal Code, Section 59 - Sentence of transportation in default of payment of fine illegal. - - As to the sentence, we are inclined to think that it is not good in law, in so far as it directs transportation for three years in default of payment of fine.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kunhussa

Respondent

The Queen

Legal References

Reported In: (1882)ILR5Mad28

Excerpt

indian penal code, section 59 - sentence of transportation in default of payment of fine illegal. - - as to the sentence, we are inclined to think that it is not good in law, in so far as it directs transportation for three years in default of payment of fine.innes and muttusami ayyar, jj.1. the appellant is satisfactorily identified as one of those who took' part in the robbery by the first three witnesses for the prosecution, and their evidence is corroborated by the wound on his finger. it appears further from the evidence that more than five men were concerned in the robbery. as to the sentence, we are inclined to think that it is not good in law, in so far as it directs transportation for three years in default of payment of fine. it appears to us that section 591 only enacts a general rule to the effect that in the case of offences for which no transportation is specially mentioned as a punishment and which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or upwards, it is competent to the judge to substitute a sentence of transportation as a substantive sentence for that of imprisonment.2. we think, therefore, the sentence requires to be revised, and we direct that the sessions judge do pass a revised sentence as to the punishment to be inflicted in default of payment of fine. in other respects we dismiss the appeal.3. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

1. The appellant is satisfactorily identified as one of those who took' part in the robbery by the first three witnesses for the prosecution, and their evidence is corroborated by the wound on his finger. It appears further from the evidence that more than five men were concerned in the robbery. As to the sentence, we are inclined to think that it is not good in law, in so far as it directs transportation for three years in default of payment of fine. It appears to us that Section 591 only enacts a general rule to the effect that in the case of offences for which no transportation is specially mentioned as a punishment and which are punishable with imprisonment for a term of 7 years or upwards, it is competent to the Judge to substitute a sentence of transportation as a substantive sentence for that of imprisonment.

2. We think, therefore, the sentence requires to be revised, and we direct that the Sessions Judge do pass a revised sentence as to the punishment to be inflicted in default of payment of fine. In other respects we dismiss the appeal.

3. Ordered accordingly.

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

Criminal