Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Appaswami Mudali

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 28, 1930
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778500
CiteSignal

Log in to get a daily email when new judgments cite this order.

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Appaswami Mudali

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Angnu Singh I.L.R.
Reported In
(1930)59MLJ853
Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Part of AI Studio: get a comprehensive 18-section AI Brief and case-scoped chat on this judgment, plus Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind from the AI Studio hub.

Log in to unlock AI Studio

Subscribers get structured AI Briefs and case-scoped chat. Learn more.

Excerpt

- - in such cases section 117(5) clearly gave the magistrate, if he thought it just, the power to deal with all the accused in the same enquiry......together associates in a course of criminal conduct such as to bring them under clauses (a)(d)(e) and (f) of section 110 of the criminal procedure code. in such cases section 117(5) clearly gave the magistrate, if he thought it just, the power to deal with all the accused in the same enquiry. but it is said that joint enquiries under section 117 are not legal where part of the enquiry is under clause (f) of section 110 and for this the decision in in re kutti goundan : air1925 mad189 which itself cites hari telang v. queen-empress i.l.r. (1900) c. 781 is relied upon. there is a sentence in the latter decision which is incorporated into the former to the effect that there can be no connection between them (the accused) in regard to their characters so as to make them dangerous persons. but this was not the ground of decision in those cases which were decided on the ground that where several accused are being jointly tried under section 110 evidence of misdeeds against each of them singly should not be admitted against the others as this will naturally prejudice these others. and walsh, j., makes this clear in empress v. angnu singh i.l.r. (1922) a. 109. more than this i think.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Krishnan Pandalai, J.

1. It is urged that the joint trial of the petitioner with two other persons who did not appeal to the Sessions Judge and have not applied to this Court was illegal.

2. The allegation against them was that all the three of them were together associates in a course of criminal conduct such as to bring them under Clauses (a)(d)(e) and (f) of Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In such cases Section 117(5) clearly gave the Magistrate, if he thought it just, the power to deal with all the accused in the same enquiry. But it is said that joint enquiries under Section 117 are not legal where part of the enquiry is under Clause (f) of Section 110 and for this the decision in In re Kutti Goundan : AIR1925 Mad189 which itself cites Hari Telang v. Queen-Empress I.L.R. (1900) C. 781 is relied upon. There is a sentence in the latter decision which is incorporated into the former to the effect that there can be no connection between them (the accused) in regard to their characters so as to make them dangerous persons. But this was not the ground of decision in those cases which were decided on the ground that where several accused are being jointly tried under Section 110 evidence of misdeeds against each of them singly should not be admitted against the others as this will naturally prejudice these others. And Walsh, J., makes this clear in Empress v. Angnu Singh I.L.R. (1922) A. 109. More than this I think none of the cases cited before me go and I find myself unable to agree to the general proposition that where proceedings are taken under Section 110(f) several persons should not be dealt with together. The evidence of reputation admitted against them should, of course, not be against each accused separately but against them all together.

3. In this case as the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows, the evidence was clear that the petitioner along with the other two men were pursuing a course of extortion and terrorising for which they were all equally responsible and on which they had jointly earned the evil reputation to which several respectable witnesses spoke.

4. I can see no error or irregularity in the trial. The petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments · Add Notes · Store Search Results · Organize Client Files

Start your Free Trial