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.

The Queen Vs. Revu Pothadu

The Queen vs Revu Pothadu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 05, 1882
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/783139

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.

Theft - Possession--Fish in a creek. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Queen

Respondent

Revu Pothadu

Legal References

Reported In
(1882)ILR5Mad390

Excerpt

theft - possession--fish in a creek. - muttusami ayyar and tarrant, jj.1. the accused have been convicted of theft under section 3791, indian penal code, and sentenced to fines of various amounts, which have been paid. the act for which they were convicted consisted of catching fish in a creek at lakshmipuram, the right to fish in which had been leased out by government.2. following the proceedings of this court, dated the 23rd october 18782, we set aside the conviction and direct that the fines levied from the accused be refunded.1 punishment for theft.[section 379: whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]2 proceedings of the high court of judicature at madras, 23rd oct., 1878, nos. 1759, 7331:in these cases a number of persons have been convicted of stealing fish from certain government tanks. the right of capturing the fish in the particular tanks in question had been sold by government at auction to persons other than the accused.the tanks were, it is understood, the ordinary open irrigation tanks of southern india, and the question is whether fish living in reservoirs of this kind are in possession in such a sense as to render their capture and removal from the reservoirs a theft. the high court are of opinion that they are not. if any right (as the right of catching the fish) is violated by the removal of them, the remedy is a civil action.in england, it is observed, it is only under special statutes that such an act is punishable. the conviction and sentences are accordingly hereby annulled. the fines levied from the accused must be refunded.

Full Judgment

Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.

1. The accused have been convicted of theft under Section 3791, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to fines of various amounts, which have been paid. The act for which they were convicted consisted of catching fish in a creek at Lakshmipuram, the right to fish in which had been leased out by Government.

2. Following the Proceedings of this Court, dated the 23rd October 18782, we set aside the conviction and direct that the fines levied from the accused be refunded.

1 Punishment for theft.

[Section 379: Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]

2 Proceedings of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 23rd Oct., 1878, Nos. 1759, 7331:

In these cases a number of persons have been convicted of stealing fish from certain Government tanks. The right of capturing the fish in the particular tanks in question had been sold by Government at auction to persons other than the accused.

The tanks were, it is understood, the ordinary open irrigation tanks of Southern India, and the question is whether fish living in reservoirs of this kind are in possession in such a sense as to render their capture and removal from the reservoirs a theft. The High Court are of opinion that they are not. If any right (as the right of catching the fish) is violated by the removal of them, the remedy is a civil action.

In England, it is observed, it is only under special statutes that such an act is punishable. The conviction and sentences are accordingly hereby annulled. The fines levied from the accused must be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial