The Queen Vs. Pottachi and anr.

The Queen vs Pottachi and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 12, 1883

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784962

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/784962
Court: Chennai
Judge: Kernan and ;Hutchins, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 12, 1883
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

V Act III of 1864, Sections 15, 22. - - We, therefore, agree with the District Magistrate that the conviction is bad, and accordingly quash it.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Queen

Respondent

Pottachi and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad161

Excerpt

v act iii of 1864, sections 15, 22. - - we, therefore, agree with the district magistrate that the conviction is bad, and accordingly quash it.hutchins, j.1. in this case, two women were arrested as they were conveying more than a quart of toddy from the sub-renter's trees to his shop. there is no doubt that they come within the letter of section 22, as they had no permit, but they were the sub-renter's servants, and acting for him, and their possession was that of their master. by section 15 sub-renters are authorized to grant permits within the limits of their farms, and the place in question was within such limits, while the quantity conveyed apparently does not exceed that which a sub-renter's permit will cover. these sections were enacted for the protection of renters and sub-renters, and whatever they can authorize others to do, they can themselves do. we, therefore, agree with the district magistrate that the conviction is bad, and accordingly quash it.2. the fines, if paid, must be refunded.

Full Judgment

Hutchins, J.

1. In this case, two women were arrested as they were conveying more than a quart of toddy from the sub-renter's trees to his shop. There is no doubt that they come within the letter of Section 22, as they had no permit, but they were the sub-renter's servants, and acting for him, and their possession was that of their master. By Section 15 sub-renters are authorized to grant permits within the limits of their farms, and the place in question was within such limits, while the quantity conveyed apparently does not exceed that which a sub-renter's permit will cover. These sections were enacted for the protection of renters and sub-renters, and whatever they can authorize others to do, they can themselves do. We, therefore, agree with the District Magistrate that the conviction is bad, and accordingly quash it.

2. The fines, if paid, must be refunded.

Same Parties The Queen vs Pottachi and anr. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Kernan and ;Hutchins, JJ.

Criminal