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.

In Re: Vellai Pillai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 28, 1951
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791403

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision Case No. 1301 of 1950 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 1229 of 1950
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - So the petitioner, to whom they had been delivered and which he wanted to book by signing in the requisite form and eventually failed to book, was in especial knowledge and was bound to explain their missing, underSection 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As he failed to explain, and as he was a 'carrier',the pr...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 106

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Vellai Pillai

Advocate V. Rajagopalachariar and ;B. Santhalingam, Advs.

Respondent

Advocate State Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 106
Cases Referred
Attyagalle v. The King
Reported In
AIR1952Mad322; (1951)2MLJ53

Excerpt

- - so the petitioner, to whom they had been delivered and which he wanted to book by signing in the requisite form and eventually failed to book, was in especial knowledge and was bound to explain their missing, undersection 106 of the indian evidence act. as he failed to explain, and as he was a 'carrier',the presumption was rightly applied against him and he was convicted properly under section 407 i......ayyar, j.1. i have perused the records and heard mr. v. rajagopalachariar, for the petitioner and the state prosecutor 'contra'. mr. rajagopalachariar urged that the lower court erred in applying section 106 of the indian evidence act to the facts of this case and relied on the ruling of the privy council in 'attyagalle v. the king', 44 mad l w 86. i have looked into that ruling. it relates to an illegal operation on a woman for abortion by a doctor called attygalk and says that merely because the doctor was alone with the lady in the same room where the abortion took place, he cannot be asked to prove that he did not perform an illegal operation for abortion on her. but it is obvious that the facts, here, are quite different. a woman usually delivers her own baby or has her own abortion. any person, even a doctor, present alone with her at 'the time of the abortion, cannot be said to have that fact specially within his knowledge, as she is the person having the fact especially within her knowledge. here, corrugated sheets are in question, and they cannot disappear by themselves. so the petitioner, to whom they had been delivered and which he wanted to book by signing in the requisite form and eventually failed to book, was in especial knowledge and was bound to explain their missing, undersection 106 of the indian evidence act. as he failed to explain, and as he was a 'carrier', the presumption was rightly applied against him and he was convicted properly under section 407 i.p.c. i confirm the conviction. i may add that the privy council itself did not give leave to appeal in the attygalk case.2. it was urged next that the sentence was toosevere, under all the circumstances, & that as thereis an independent civil liability on the part of thepetitioner for the goods, i might reduce the sentence. after hearing the learned state prosecutoralso on the point, i reduce the sentence to theperiod of rigorous imprisonment already undergoneand a fine of rs. five.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. I have perused the records and heard Mr. V. Rajagopalachariar, for the petitioner and the State Prosecutor 'contra'. Mr. Rajagopalachariar urged that the lower Court erred in applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to the facts of this case and relied on the ruling of the Privy Council in 'Attyagalle v. The King', 44 Mad L W 86. I have looked into that ruling. It relates to an illegal operation on a woman for abortion by a doctor called Attygalk and says that merely because the doctor was alone with the lady in the same room where the abortion took place, he cannot be asked to prove that he did not perform an illegal operation for abortion on her. But it is obvious that the facts, here, are quite different. A woman usually delivers her own baby or has her own abortion. Any person, even a doctor, present alone with her at 'the time of the abortion, cannot be said to have that fact specially within his knowledge, as she is the person having the fact especially within her knowledge. Here, corrugated sheets are in question, and they cannot disappear by themselves. So the petitioner, to whom they had been delivered and which he wanted to book by signing in the requisite form and eventually failed to book, was in especial knowledge and was bound to explain their missing, underSection 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As he failed to explain, and as he was a 'carrier', the presumption was rightly applied against him and he was convicted properly under Section 407 I.P.C. I confirm the conviction. I may add that the Privy Council itself did not give leave to appeal in the Attygalk case.

2. It was urged next that the sentence was toosevere, under all the circumstances, & that as thereIs an independent civil liability on the part of thepetitioner for the goods, I might reduce the sentence. After hearing the learned State Prosecutoralso on the point, I reduce the sentence to theperiod of rigorous imprisonment already undergoneand a fine of Rs. five hundred (Rs. 500), or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for threemonths. Time is given till 3 p. m. on 20th April1951 to pay the fine into the lower Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial