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: Venkatasubbaier and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 15, 1922
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/792249

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
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: Venkatasubbaier and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Sama Ruddi v. Emperor I.L.R.
Reported In
(1923)44MLJ407

Excerpt

- orderkrishnan, j.1. it is argued that the conviction under section 147, indian penal code, was wrong as no force or violence was used to any person and that the accused are guilty under section 143 only. the definition of force is given in section 349 of the indian. penal code. now these accused are found to have gone and beaten on the door when the complainant fled away to save himself from being beaten and shut himself up in his room. whatever difficulty there may be in bringing the action of the accused within the definition of force it is clear they used violence which is sufficient under section 146 of the indian penal code, to make their offence rioting. this view is supported by the ruling in sama ruddi v. emperor i.l.r. (1912) cal. 367 where it was held that the word violence was not restricted to force used against persons only but extends also to force against inanimate objects. the accused were therefore rightly convicted under section 147 of the indian penal code.2. the fines however seem to me to be excessive in the case of pariah accused nos. 4 to 14. their fines will be reduced to rupees 10 each; in default two weeks rigorous imprisonment. the sentence of the others are confirmed. excess fines if collected would be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Krishnan, J.

1. It is argued that the conviction under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, was wrong as no force or violence was used to any person and that the accused are guilty under Section 143 only. The definition of force is given in Section 349 of the Indian. Penal Code. Now these accused are found to have gone and beaten on the door when the complainant fled away to save himself from being beaten and shut himself up in his room. Whatever difficulty there may be in bringing the action of the accused within the definition of force it is clear they used violence which is sufficient under Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code, to make their offence rioting. This view is supported by the ruling in Sama Ruddi v. Emperor I.L.R. (1912) Cal. 367 where it was held that the word violence was not restricted to force used against persons only but extends also to force against inanimate objects. The accused were therefore rightly convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The fines however seem to me to be excessive in the case of Pariah accused Nos. 4 to 14. Their fines will be reduced to Rupees 10 each; in default two weeks rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of the others are confirmed. Excess fines if collected would be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial