Queen-empress Vs. Virasami

Queen-empress vs Virasami

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 07, 1900

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787331

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/787331
Court: Chennai
Judge: Davies and ;Benson, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 07, 1900
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Stamp Act - Act II of 1899, Section 69--Court Fees Act-- Act VII of 1870 (as amended by Act XII of 1891), Section 34--Sale by thief of stolen stamps--Offence. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Virasami

Legal References

Reported In: (1901)ILR24Mad319

Excerpt

stamp act - act ii of 1899, section 69--court fees act-- act vii of 1870 (as amended by act xii of 1891), section 34--sale by thief of stolen stamps--offence. - 1. we do not agree with the deputy magistrate that, because a thief cannot give a legal title in regard to a stamp stolen by him, he is incapable of committing an offence under section 69 of the general stamp act or section 34 of the court fees act. the words of those sections are,--whoever 'sells or offers for sale' any stamp shall be punished, &c.;, unless be is a person who has been appointed by government to sell stamps. we think there can be no doubt but that these words include the case of a thief who exchanges a stolen stamp for a sum of money. we, therefore, set aside the acquittal. the judgment of the deputy magistrate treats the offence as one under section 69 of the general stamp act, but the appeal petition states that it is one under section 34 of the court fees act. the stamps are not on the record and we are unable to say against which act the offence was, in fact, committed. we therefore do not ourselves pass sentence but direct the deputy magistrate to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law.

Full Judgment

1. We do not agree with the Deputy Magistrate that, because a thief cannot give a legal title in regard to a stamp stolen by him, he is incapable of committing an offence under Section 69 of the General Stamp Act or Section 34 of the Court Fees Act. The words of those sections are,--whoever 'sells or offers for sale' any stamp shall be punished, &c.;, unless be is a person who has been appointed by Government to sell stamps. We think there can be no doubt but that these words include the case of a thief who exchanges a stolen stamp for a sum of money. We, therefore, set aside the acquittal. The judgment of the Deputy Magistrate treats the offence as one under Section 69 of the General Stamp Act, but the appeal petition states that it is one under Section 34 of the Court Fees Act. The stamps are not on the record and we are unable to say against which Act the offence was, in fact, committed. We therefore do not ourselves pass sentence but direct the Deputy Magistrate to restore the case to his file and dispose of it according to law.

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Virasami Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Davies and ;Benson, JJ.

Criminal