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.

Queen-empress Vs. Virappachetti

Queen-empress vs Virappachetti

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 17, 1896
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781690

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Act XLV of 1860, Sections 268, 283--Encroachment on public highway--Public nuisance. - - 2. It may be that Section 283 is inapplicable in the absence of evidence that danger, obstruction or injury was caused to any particular person, but the acts of the accused clearly fell within the definition of a ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Virappachetti

Legal References

Reported In
(1897)ILR20Mad433

Excerpt

penal code - act xlv of 1860, sections 268, 283--encroachment on public highway--public nuisance. - - 2. it may be that section 283 is inapplicable in the absence of evidence that danger, obstruction or injury was caused to any particular person, but the acts of the accused clearly fell within the definition of a 'public nuisance' in section 268, indian penal code, and was, therefore, punishable under section 290. 3. the public is entitled to the use of the full width of the public street, however wide it may be.1. the second-class magistrate has acquitted the accused in these two cases of an offence under section 283, indian penal code, on the ground that the encroachment, if such there be, does not cause any 'danger, obstruction or annoyance' to the public.2. it may be that section 283 is inapplicable in the absence of evidence that danger, obstruction or injury was caused to any particular person, but the acts of the accused clearly fell within the definition of a 'public nuisance' in section 268, indian penal code, and was, therefore, punishable under section 290.3. the public is entitled to the use of the full width of the public street, however wide it may be. whoever appropriates any part of the street by building over it infringes the right of the public quoad the part built over. the act must necessarily cause obstruction to persons who may have occasion to use their public right over the part encroached upon.4. the second-class magistrate has not decided whether the land built over was in fact part of the public street or was their own private land as pleaded by the accused. we, therefore, set aside the acquittals in both cases, and direct that the accused be re-tried and charges against them be disposed of according to law.5. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. The Second-Class Magistrate has acquitted the accused in these two cases of an offence under Section 283, Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the encroachment, if such there be, does not cause any 'danger, obstruction or annoyance' to the public.

2. It may be that Section 283 is inapplicable in the absence of evidence that danger, obstruction or injury was caused to any particular person, but the acts of the accused clearly fell within the definition of a 'public nuisance' in Section 268, Indian Penal Code, and was, therefore, punishable under Section 290.

3. The public is entitled to the use of the full width of the public street, however wide it may be. Whoever appropriates any part of the street by building over it infringes the right of the public quoad the part built over. The act must necessarily cause obstruction to persons who may have occasion to use their public right over the part encroached upon.

4. The Second-Class Magistrate has not decided whether the land built over was in fact part of the public street or was their own private land as pleaded by the accused. We, therefore, set aside the acquittals in both cases, and direct that the accused be re-tried and charges against them be disposed of according to law.

5. Ordered accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial