The Public Prosecutor Vs. Nagappan Servai

The Public Prosecutor vs Nagappan Servai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 12, 1941

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/775337

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/775337
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Mar 12, 1941
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- Section 16 (1) (c) :[Tarun Chatterjee & Aftab Alam,JJ] Ready and willing to perform-Concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - Buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitati...

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Nagappan Servai

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1941Mad718; (1941)1MLJ695

Excerpt

- section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that time was essence of contract. .....offence under section 397 indian penal code and the revision case has been preferred by the public prosecutor for enhancement of sentence.2. the case is simple and as found by the jury p. w. 2 was robbed of her jewels on her way to nattarsankottai along with her mother p.w. 3 and brother p.w. 4. m.o. no. 1, the knife was used by the 1st accused to frighten p.ws. 3 and 4, and it struck and caused hurt to p.w. 2. the second accused then removed the jewels and both the accused were caught soon after, the first accused with m.o. no. 1, the knife with human blood on it and the second accused with m.o. nos. 2 to 5 the stolen jewels. the knife m.o. 1 is a deadly weapon and it was used at the time of committing the robbery. section 397 indian penal code does not require the user to be against the person robbed and the guilt of the first accused under section 392 indian penal code read with section 397 indian penal code admits of no doubt. the appeal is therefore allowed and the first accused is convicted under section 392 read with section 397 indian penal code and sentenced to the minimum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years.3. the revision case becomes unnecessary as regards the first accused and the sentence of the second accused who is a first offender cannot be said to be inadequate. the revision petition is therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The appeal and revision case arise out of Sessions Case No. 103 of 1940 in which two persons were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Ramnad with a jury, the first accused for an offence under Section 392 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code and the second accused, under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found the 1st accused guilty under Section 392 Indian Penal Code and the second accused under Section 394 Indian Penal Code and accepting the verdict the Assistant Sessions Judge sentenced the first accused to rigorous imprisonment for two years and the second accused to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months. The Crown appeals against the acquittal of the first accused of the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code and the revision case has been preferred by the Public Prosecutor for enhancement of sentence.

2. The case is simple and as found by the jury P. W. 2 was robbed of her jewels on her way to Nattarsankottai along with her mother P.W. 3 and brother P.W. 4. M.O. No. 1, the knife was used by the 1st accused to frighten P.Ws. 3 and 4, and it struck and caused hurt to P.W. 2. The second accused then removed the jewels and both the accused were caught soon after, the first accused with M.O. No. 1, the knife with human blood on it and the second accused with M.O. Nos. 2 to 5 the stolen jewels. The knife M.O. 1 is a deadly weapon and it was used at the time of committing the robbery. Section 397 Indian Penal Code does not require the user to be against the person robbed and the guilt of the first accused under Section 392 Indian Penal Code read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code admits of no doubt. The appeal is therefore allowed and the first accused is convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the minimum punishment of rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

3. The revision case becomes unnecessary as regards the first accused and the sentence of the second accused who is a first offender cannot be said to be inadequate. The revision petition is therefore dismissed.

Same Parties The Public Prosecutor vs Nagappan Servai Same Subject Criminal

Criminal