C. Samuel Aaron Vs. Emperor

C. Samuel Aaron vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 06, 1931

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/796687

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/796687
Court: Chennai
Decided On: Feb 06, 1931
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - but one might as well infer that a cricket captain employs his team.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C. Samuel Aaron

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1931Mad440

Excerpt

- - but one might as well infer that a cricket captain employs his team.orderjackson, j.1. the petitioner has been fined rs. 1,000 for harbouring in cannanore certain persons from travancore and cochin who were trying to make salt out of sea water. he agrees that they stopped at his vacant hotel, and there is no doubt that he harboured them. but for a conviction under section 157, i. p.c., it must be shown that they were hired, engaged or employed, and of that there is really no evidence.2. the police-inspector p. w. 1 infers that their leader employed them; but one might as well infer that a cricket captain employs his team. it is quite possible that they were all volunteers hired, engaged and employed by no one.3. in that view of the case the conviction cannot stand; the petition is allowed and the fine ordered to be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. The petitioner has been fined Rs. 1,000 for harbouring in Cannanore certain persons from Travancore and Cochin who were trying to make salt out of sea water. He agrees that they stopped at his vacant hotel, and there is no doubt that he harboured them. But for a conviction under Section 157, I. P.C., it must be shown that they were hired, engaged or employed, and of that there is really no evidence.

2. The Police-Inspector P. W. 1 infers that their leader employed them; but one might as well infer that a cricket captain employs his team. It is quite possible that they were all volunteers hired, engaged and employed by no one.

3. In that view of the case the conviction cannot stand; the petition is allowed and the fine ordered to be refunded.

Same Parties C. Samuel Aaron vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal

Criminal