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: V. Natarajan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 02, 1962
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/812958

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: V. Natarajan

Legal References

Cases Referred
In Mangu Bhai v. Emperor A.I.R.
Reported In
(1962)2MLJ507

Excerpt

- ordersadasivam, j.1. petitioner has been convicted under section 75 of the city police act and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 20 (rs. twenty) in default to rigorous imprisonment for one week.2. the charge-sheet against the petitioner is that he entered into a barber's saloon, took out his slipper and gave a hit on the head of one v. natarajan (p.w. 1) used vulgar words, abused him, created disturbance and caused annoyance to the public. there is evidence in the case that part of the disorderly behaviour took place even on the road.3. the only point argued in the case is that barber's saloon is not a public place. it is clear from the definition in section 3 of the city police act that a place to which public are granted access is a public places in mangu bhai v. emperor a.i.r. 1930 bom. 369 a hotel has been held to be a public place. the barber's saloon in this case is one kept under licence granted by the corporation of madras under section 287 of the madras city municipal act and it is open to every member of the public. under the licence the keeper of the saloon is bound to exclude only persons suffering from any visible skin disease, open sore or loathsome or dangerous disease. such a prohibition applies even in the case of hotels. every member of the public is entitled to enter into a public hair cutting saloon for a shave or a hair cut and the saloon-keeper cannot refuse admission to him or push him out except on pain of being sued or prosecuted for assault. there can, therefore, be no doubt that the barber's saloon is a ' public place as defined in section 3 of the madras city police act. the conviction of the petitioner under section 75 of the city police act is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. the criminal revision case is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sadasivam, J.

1. Petitioner has been convicted under Section 75 of the City Police Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 (Rs. twenty) in default to rigorous imprisonment for one week.

2. The charge-sheet against the petitioner is that he entered into a barber's saloon, took out his slipper and gave a hit on the head of one V. Natarajan (P.W. 1) used vulgar words, abused him, created disturbance and caused annoyance to the public. There is evidence in the case that part of the disorderly behaviour took place even on the road.

3. The only point argued in the case is that barber's saloon is not a public place. It is clear from the definition in Section 3 of the City Police Act that a place to which public are granted access is a public places In Mangu Bhai v. Emperor A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 369 a hotel has been held to be a public place. The barber's saloon in this case is one kept under licence granted by the Corporation of Madras under Section 287 of the Madras City Municipal Act and it is open to every member of the public. Under the licence the keeper of the saloon is bound to exclude only persons suffering from any visible skin disease, open sore or loathsome or dangerous disease. Such a prohibition applies even in the case of hotels. Every member of the public is entitled to enter into a public hair cutting saloon for a shave or a hair cut and the saloon-keeper cannot refuse admission to him or push him out except on pain of being sued or prosecuted for assault. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the barber's saloon is a ' public place as defined in Section 3 of the Madras City Police Act. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 75 of the City Police Act is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the conviction or the sentence. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial