The Queen Vs. Yellamandu

The Queen vs Yellamandu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 14, 1882

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/777066

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/777066
Court: Chennai
Judge: Innes and ;Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 14, 1882
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Indian Penal Code, Section 290 - Nuisance--Punishment. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Queen

Respondent

Yellamandu

Legal References

Reported In: (1882)ILR5Mad157

Excerpt

indian penal code, section 290 - nuisance--punishment. - innes and muttusami ayyar, jj.1. the accused in this case was convicted under section 290, indian penal code, and sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment, to undergo a brief term of rigorous imprisonment.2. the fine was paid, but the district magistrate submits that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine is of questionable legality, the offence of nuisance being punishable with fine only.3. the imprisonment allowed by law mentioned in clause 3 of section 309, criminal procedure code, would, in the present case, be imprisonment under section 290 of the indian penal code, and the imprisonment awardable under that section of the penal code is not restricted to simple imprisonment. we think, therefore, that the award of rigorous imprisonment was not illegal.

Full Judgment

Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

1. The accused in this case was convicted under Section 290, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment, to undergo a brief term of rigorous imprisonment.

2. The fine was paid, but the District Magistrate submits that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine is of questionable legality, the offence of nuisance being punishable with fine only.

3. The imprisonment allowed by law mentioned in Clause 3 of Section 309, Criminal Procedure Code, would, in the present case, be imprisonment under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, and the imprisonment awardable under that section of the Penal Code is not restricted to simple imprisonment. We think, therefore, that the award of rigorous imprisonment was not illegal.

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

Criminal