The King Emperor Vs. Kanna

The King Emperor vs Kanna

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 07, 1908

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/777459

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/777459
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Apr 07, 1908
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - This is clearly an offence within the section and the accused should have been convicted.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The King Emperor

Respondent

Kanna

Legal References

Cases Referred: Venkatarama Chetty v. Emperor I.L.R.
Reported In: (1908)18MLJ329

Excerpt

- - this is clearly an offence within the section and the accused should have been convicted.1. the order of the stationary 2nd class magistrate acquitting the accused cannot be supported. the accused was charged with exposing fish for sale so as to cause obstruction under section 3(6) of the town nuisances act.2. the magistrate has acquitted him, because the obstruction wan caused by people collecting in front of him for the purpose of buying his fish and was not caused by the fish that were being exposed. the evidence which was uncontradicted proved conclusively that owing to the accused's selling fish-on the road side near the market, numbers of people collected there and caused an obstruction. this is clearly an offence within the section and the accused should have been convicted.3. the case referred to venkatarama chetty v. emperor i.l.r. (1904) m. 17 has no application. the order of acquittal of the stationary 2nd class magistrate is set aside, and we direct the magistrate to retake the case on his file and dispose of it according to law.

Full Judgment

1. The order of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate acquitting the accused cannot be supported. The accused was charged with exposing fish for sale so as to cause obstruction under Section 3(6) of the Town Nuisances Act.

2. The Magistrate has acquitted him, because the obstruction wan caused by people collecting in front of him for the purpose of buying his fish and was not caused by the fish that were being exposed. The evidence which was uncontradicted proved conclusively that owing to the accused's selling fish-on the road side near the market, numbers of people collected there and caused an obstruction. This is clearly an offence within the section and the accused should have been convicted.

3. The case referred to Venkatarama Chetty v. Emperor I.L.R. (1904) M. 17 has no application. The order of acquittal of the Stationary 2nd Class Magistrate is set aside, and we direct the Magistrate to retake the case on his file and dispose of it according to law.

Same Parties The King Emperor vs Kanna Same Subject Criminal

Criminal