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: Munnikilavan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 18, 1971
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/811480

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
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: Munnikilavan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
(1971)2MLJ237a

Excerpt

- order1. the three petitioners question the propriety of their convictions under section 34 (6) of the police act (v of 1861) for the offence which may be described compendiously as being found riotous. it has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the offence proved against the petitioners took place in the village kalakudi which cannot be described as any 'town' within the meaning of section 34 of the police act, 1861. it is conceded by the learned advocate-general that the village kalakudi is not a 'town' within the meaning of section 34 of the act. it is totally unnecessary to examine the scope of section 46 of the act, which provides for the extension of the whole or any part of this act to any presidency, state or place, and also the terms of g.o.ms. no. 3204, home department (government of tamil nadu), dated 15th november, 1955.2. it is on the short ground of want of proof of the ingredient 'town' in relation to kalakudi village wherein the offence is stated to have been committed, this petition has got to be allowed.3. the convictions of the petitioners are quashed and their sentences are set aside. fines, if paid, are directed to be refunded to them. the revision petition is allowed.4. obviously section 34 of the police act cannot be resorted to by the prosecuting authorities in respect of offences committed in villages which cannot be deemed to be 'towns' within the meaning section 34 of the said act.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The three petitioners question the propriety of their convictions Under Section 34 (6) of the Police Act (V of 1861) for the offence which may be described compendiously as being found riotous. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the offence proved against the petitioners took place in the village Kalakudi which cannot be described as any 'town' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Police Act, 1861. It is conceded by the learned Advocate-General that the village Kalakudi is not a 'town' within the meaning of Section 34 of the Act. It is totally unnecessary to examine the scope of Section 46 of the Act, which provides for the extension of the whole or any part of this Act to any presidency, State or place, and also the terms of G.O.Ms. No. 3204, Home Department (Government of Tamil Nadu), dated 15th November, 1955.

2. It is on the short ground of want of proof of the ingredient 'town' in relation to Kalakudi village wherein the offence is stated to have been committed, this petition has got to be allowed.

3. The convictions of the petitioners are quashed and their sentences are set aside. Fines, if paid, are directed to be refunded to them. The revision petition is allowed.

4. Obviously Section 34 of the Police Act cannot be resorted to by the prosecuting authorities in respect of offences committed in villages which cannot be deemed to be 'towns' within the meaning Section 34 of the said Act.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial