Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

In Re: Nokole Behara and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 29, 1927
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/788255

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Nokole Behara and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Manchu Paidigadu v. Kadimsetti Tammayya
Reported In
(1927)53MLJ759

Excerpt

- orderanantakrishna aiyar, j.1. two points have been argued in this case (1) that it is not shown that the place where the accused fished was within the government village and (2) that fish could not be subject of theft.2. on the first point there is the definite finding that the place of fishing is within the limits of manikyahur (government) village. the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses supports that finding which is one of fact. (2) as regards the 2nd point there is the finding that the fish were in ponds and that it is by baling the water out from the ponds that fish are caught in this case. they are confined in the ponds and could not escape from the same and go elsewhere. such fish could be the subject of theft [per miller, j., in manchu paidigadu v. kadimsetti tammayya 22 ind.cas. 429 : 1914 m.w.n. 168].3. the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

1. Two points have been argued in this case (1) that it is not shown that the place where the accused fished was within the Government village and (2) that fish could not be subject of theft.

2. On the first point there is the definite finding that the place of fishing is within the limits of Manikyahur (Government) village. The evidence given by the prosecution witnesses supports that finding which is one of fact. (2) As regards the 2nd point there is the finding that the fish were in ponds and that it is by baling the water out from the ponds that fish are caught in this case. They are confined in the ponds and could not escape from the same and go elsewhere. Such fish could be the subject of theft [Per Miller, J., in Manchu Paidigadu v. Kadimsetti Tammayya 22 IND.CAS. 429 : 1914 M.W.N. 168].

3. The petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Nokole Behara and ors. vs Same Subject Criminal
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales