Queen-empress Vs. Paranga

Queen-empress vs Paranga

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 29, 1893

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/789901

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/789901
Court: Chennai
Judge: Muttusami Ayyar and ;Shephard, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 29, 1893
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Act XLV of 1860, Section 174--Disobedience to a summons. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Paranga

Legal References

Reported In: (1893)ILR16Mad463

Excerpt

penal code - act xlv of 1860, section 174--disobedience to a summons. - order1. we do not think the accused was bound to appear before the magistrate at a place outside british territory. the indian penal code applies only to criminal acts done in india under section 2, except in the special cases mentioned in section 3. if the magistrate had ordinarily power to summon witnesses to attend at a place outside british india, the act of disobedience would then be done in foreign territory and amount to an offence over which he would have no jurisdiction. the proper construction of section 174 is that the place where a witness is summoned to attend must be in british india.2. we direct that the conviction and sentence be set aside, and the fine levied be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. We do not think the accused was bound to appear before the Magistrate at a place outside British territory. The Indian Penal Code applies only to criminal acts done in India under Section 2, except in the special cases mentioned in Section 3. If the Magistrate had ordinarily power to summon witnesses to attend at a place outside British India, the act of disobedience would then be done in foreign territory and amount to an offence over which he would have no jurisdiction. The proper construction of Section 174 is that the place where a witness is summoned to attend must be in British India.

2. We direct that the conviction and sentence be set aside, and the fine levied be refunded.

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Paranga Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Muttusami Ayyar and ;Shephard, JJ.

Criminal