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: Gopinathan and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 08, 1974
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/803804

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
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Gopinathan and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred
and Mallkiat Singh v. State of Punjab
Reported In
1975CriLJ1217

Excerpt

- orderk.n. mudaliyar, j.1. the two petitioners were convicted of the offence punishable under section 3 of the s. s. r. read with section 7 (1) of the essential commodities act. the accusation against them is that on 17-10-1971 at 1 a, m., at thittankinavilaikulappuram road-junction, the two petitioners were found transporting 63 bags of boiled rice, each bag containing 70 kgs., in lorry, mdk 3057 in the belt area to kerala without licence or permit. the submission of mr. alagiriswami is that this lorry was stopped at a distance of one and a half miles away from the kerala-tamil nadu state-border and therefore, the two petitioners could not be said to export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice from any place within the state of madras to a place outside the state, for the two petitioners could be actuated by locus paenitentiae before they reached the border of kerala. in view of the rationale found in the judgments of the supreme court in jacco v. state crl. r. c. no. 887 of 1969 and mallkiat singh v. state of punjab : 1970 crilj750 and in m. kasi in re, (1971) mlw 210, i am inclined to hold that the two petitioners cannot be convicted of the offence under section 3 of the s. s. r. read with section 7 (1) of the essential commodities act. they are acquitted. the revision petition is allowed. the seized property or the equivalent value thereof may be returned to the owner thereof.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. The two petitioners were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 3 of the S. S. R. read with Section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act. The accusation against them is that on 17-10-1971 at 1 A, M., at Thittankinavilaikulappuram road-junction, the two petitioners were found transporting 63 bags of boiled rice, each bag containing 70 kgs., in lorry, MDK 3057 in the belt area to Kerala without licence or permit. The submission of Mr. Alagiriswami is that this lorry was stopped at a distance of one and a half miles away from the Kerala-Tamil Nadu State-border and therefore, the two petitioners could not be said to export or attempt to export or abet the export of rice from any place within the State of Madras to a place outside the State, for the two petitioners could be actuated by locus paenitentiae before they reached the border of Kerala. In view of the rationale found in the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jacco v. State Crl. R. C. No. 887 of 1969 and Mallkiat Singh v. State of Punjab : 1970 CriLJ750 and in M. Kasi In re, (1971) MLW 210, I am inclined to hold that the two petitioners cannot be convicted of the offence under Section 3 of the S. S. R. read with Section 7 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act. They are acquitted. The revision petition is allowed. The seized property or the equivalent value thereof may be returned to the owner thereof.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial