Chennai Court August 1882 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Queen Vs. Venguvayyangar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad25
Innes, Officiating C.J., and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The accused, who is the Nattamgar (Headman) of a village, was tried under Section 4091, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust in respect of part of certain revenue collections which he was charged with embezzling. He was discharged under Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, the reason given by the Joint Magistrate for such discharge being that he could not find the accused guilty on the gross sum in respect of which he was charged.2. If, however, the Magistrate found the charge established as to a portion of the amount, he should have convicted as to that portion.3. From his judgment it seems doubtful what he found as to the sums mentioned in exhibits A and N. His order of discharge should be set aside, and he should be directed to come to a finding as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner on these items. If he finds him guilty, he should pass sentence according to law.4. In connection with this case the District Magistr...
Number Vs. Ambu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad381
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The facts of this case are that on the 27th February last the first accused was charged under Section 24* of The Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, with having rescued a cow from the possession of the complainant, who was conveying it to a village pound to be impounded, and he was further charged, along with the second and [382] third defendants, with using criminal force to the complainant on the same occasion (Section 352, Indian Penal Code).2. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the first accused (first defendant) on both charges, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5, commutable into five days' rigorous imprisonment, and also the complainant's costs, amounting to 12 annas. The second and third accused were acquitted under Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the complainant was ordered to pay to the third defendant Rs. 3 as compensation under Section 209 of the said Code.3. The District Magistrate submits that, with reference to High Court ruling o...
The Queen Vs. Varthappa Nayakan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-09-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad382
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. We agree with the District Magistrate.2. The accused was found passing through the bamboo fence of the market at Ambur with a bundle of thread intended for sale. The Second-class Magistrate considered that he did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to the toll contractor by evading payment of the toll which he would have had to pay if he had entered by the gate where the contractor was waiting to levy it, and he convicted him (accused) of criminal trespass, and fined him Rs. 2.3. Evasion of tolls may be a wrong, but it is of itself no offence. There is no finding that the entry was made with any of the intents mentioned in Section 44l* of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and the sentence are set aside and the fine must be refunded.* Criminal trespass.[Section 441: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property; or havi...
The Queen Vs. Revu Pothadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad390
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The accused have been convicted of theft under Section 3791, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to fines of various amounts, which have been paid. The act for which they were convicted consisted of catching fish in a creek at Lakshmipuram, the right to fish in which had been leased out by Government.2. Following the Proceedings of this Court, dated the 23rd October 18782, we set aside the conviction and direct that the fines levied from the accused be refunded.1 Punishment for theft.[Section 379: Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]2 Proceedings of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 23rd Oct., 1878, Nos. 1759, 7331:In these cases a number of persons have been convicted of stealing fish from certain Government tanks. The right of capturing the fish in the particular tanks in question had been sold by Government at auction to persons ot...
Srinivasa Mudali Vs. Ponnambalam and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad376
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. A contract was entered into between the accused and complainant that the accused should beat tom-tom during a certain festival which was to have continued from the 31st May to the 9th June 1882, which contract the accused failed to carry out. On the 9th June, or the last day of the festival, the Tahsildar Magistrate made an order under Act XIII of 1859 that the accused should perform the work which they had agreed to do for the complainant, but without specifying within what time, or during what period, they were to do the work. After the order was made, and on the same day, the accused, whose original defence had been that they had no tom-tom with them, said they could not render the service which they had been ordered to perform, and thereupon the Tahsildar Magistrate proceeded at once to sentence them to ten days' rigorous imprisonment for non-compliance with his order.2. There was no complaint that his order was not complied with and no statements...
The Queen Vs. Vanam Subramanyam and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad378
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. Accused have been convicted of disobedience to summonses issued under Madras Act III of 1869 by the local Tahsildar, requesting them to attend the Taluq kachari for the purpose of preparing the Census, Jama-bundi, Dowle, and other accounts. They were each sentenced to a fine of Rs. 5, or in default five days' simple imprisonment.2. The accused were not summoned to give evidence or produce any document in connection with the investigation of any matter in which the Tahsildar was authorized to hold an inquiry, and the summons disobeyed is, therefore, not within the purview of Madras Act III of 1869.3. The conviction is bad and must be quashed. The fine, if levied, should be refunded....
Sambasivanna Vs. Bhogappa and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad378a
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. Having regard to the statement made by the complainant, we think that the complaint should have been treated as one of voluntary hurt. The Second-class Magistrate was therefore in error in treating it as one of criminal force and allowing it to be withdrawn.2. Considering, however, that the complainant himself treated the violence used to him as amounting to criminal force, and that it is nearly three months since the complaint has been withdrawn, we are of opinion that no further proceedings in the case are necessary....
The Queen Vs. Kadar Khan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-05-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad380
1. Kadar Khan was a witness for the defence of one Shaik Hyder, then on his trial for rioting, and, on the conclusion of the trial, was required by the Magistrate to give security to keep the peace for a year, the reasons given by the presiding Magistrate for this order being that the evidence given by Kadar Khan in the trial left no doubt on his mind but that he was one of the rioters in the case then being tried, and that it was probable he might at some future time encourage a breach of the peace.2. The Sessions Judge, however, points out that Kadar Khan's evidence in the trial as recorded contains nothing equivalent to an information that he was likely to commit a breach of the peace or to do any act calculated to occasion a breach of the peace; and, moreover, that, presuming any such information was contained therein, such evidence, which is the only evidence recorded at all in the proceedings, was not of the nature on which the Joint Magistrate was at liberty to adjudicate as req...
Chengaya Vs. Appasami Ayyar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-04-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR6Mad172
Innes, Officiating C.J. and Kindersley, J.1. It appears to us that the application on the 14th December 1877, though an application 'under the section' in the sense of the third clause of Section 230, was not an application which was granted within the meaning of that clause. It was simply an application on which a notice was issued under Section 248. The applicant cannot be brought, therefore, within the twelve years rule of Section 230, and, as his last application was presented on the 10th December 1880 (not as the District Judge says 18th December), it was within three years from the last preceding application, and is in time.2. We must reverse the order and allow the appeal with costs....
Hassaji and anr. Vs. the East India Railway Company
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-03-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR5Mad388
Innes, Officiating C.J.1. This appeal arises in a suit in which the plaintiffs seek compensation for goods belonging to them carried by the East India Railway for delivery to them and not delivered. The consignment consisted of 220 bags of grain, out of which plaintiffs received all but 93. Of these 28 were lost and 65 bags, after arrival, were damaged (as is found upon the evidence by the Courts below) by a complication of causes against which it was impossible for the defendants to provide, and had to be destroyed under orders of the Magistrate. As to the 65 bags, therefore, the defendants cannot be held answerable.2. In regard to the 28 bags the Company are undoubtedly liable, unless the claim is, as contended, barred. The loss occurred on the 20th September 1877, at latest, as it was discovered on that date, and if the question of the period of limitation be governed by Article 30 of the Second Schedule of Act XV of 1877, this suit is undoubtedly barred as it was not instituted til...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »