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: Arunachala Mudali and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 04, 1940
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/792551

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: Arunachala Mudali and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1941Mad99(2); (1940)2MLJ819

Excerpt

- orderlakshmana rao, j.1. the first petitioner obtained a licence from the district superintendent of police under section 30, clause (2) of the indian police act for taking a procession, and one of the conditions of the licence was that music of all description should be stopped within a distance of 50 yards on either side of any mosque. this condition was violated by petitioners 2 to 11 and the first petitioner the licensee would unquestionably be guilty under section 32 of the indian police act. the real question is whether the other petitioners would also be guilty under that section and as urged by the public prosecutor section 32 provides that every person violating the condition of any licence granted by the district superintendent of police for the use of music shall be liable to a fine. the person violating the condition need not be the licensee, and the finding is that petitioners 2 to 11 were aware of the conditions of the licence. they too would therefore be guilty under section 32 of the indian police act and there is no ground for interference with the conviction. but the fines are excessive and they are reduced to rs. 100 in the case of the first petitioner and rs. 25 each in the case of the others. otherwise this petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The first petitioner obtained a licence from the District Superintendent of Police under Section 30, Clause (2) of the Indian Police Act for taking a procession, and one of the conditions of the licence was that music of all description should be stopped within a distance of 50 yards on either side of any mosque. This condition was violated by petitioners 2 to 11 and the first petitioner the licensee would unquestionably be guilty under Section 32 of the Indian Police Act. The real question is whether the other petitioners would also be guilty under that section and as urged by the Public Prosecutor Section 32 provides that every person violating the condition of any licence granted by the District Superintendent of Police for the use of music shall be liable to a fine. The person violating the condition need not be the licensee, and the finding is that petitioners 2 to 11 were aware of the conditions of the licence. They too would therefore be guilty under Section 32 of the Indian Police Act and there is no ground for interference with the conviction. But the fines are excessive and they are reduced to Rs. 100 in the case of the first petitioner and Rs. 25 each in the case of the others. Otherwise this petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial