Chennai Court February 1884 Judgments
Shaik HussaIn Vs. Sanjivi and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad345
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The two accused in this case were convicted under Section 22 of the Cattle Trespass Act (Madras Act I of 1871) of illegal seizure of cattle and were ordered by the convicting Magistrate to pay not only the one rupee which the complainant had paid to procure the release of his cattle, but also Rs. 2-10-0, the amount of court and process fees paid by him in prosecuting his case under Section 31 of the Court Fees Act.2. The Acting District Magistrate is of opinion that the order is illegal, in so far as it directs the payment of Rs. 2-10-0, and, adverting to the conflicting decisions on the point in Criminal Revision Cases 798 and 817 of 1883 asks for a Full Bench ruling for his future guidance.3. In Revision Case 798 of 1883 it was held that the award of the costs of the prosecution was illegal, and in case No. 817 of 1883 it was observed that the Magistrate appeared to be competent to award them under Section 31 [q.v. supra, 7 Mad. 345] of the Court Fees Act, but t...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Empress Vs. Krishna and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad348
Brandt, J.1. In this case four persons have been convicted by a Second-class Magistrate under Clauses (c) and (d), Section 821 of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, the first of having falsely personated another and in such assumed character presented a document for registration, and the second, third, and fourth with having abetted such false personation. The District Magistrate submits that an offence falling under that section is not cognizable by a Second-class Magistrate. I do not agree in that opinion. Section 29* of the Criminal Procedure Code, to which the Magistrate has adverted, enacts, in its first clause, that any offence under any special law shall, when any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court. The proviso that no Magistrate of the second class shall try any such offence which is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, is a proviso to the next clause which deals with laws in which no Court is mentioned.2. S...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshmana Vs. Sukiya Bai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-29-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad400
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The judgment-debtor filed a petition, praying that the Court would adjourn the sale for six weeks to enable him to raise the amount of the decree by private sale or mortgage. Referring to the circumstance that the decree did not provide for the payment of interest after the date of suit, he undertook, in consideration that an adjournment was granted to him, to pay interest at 12 per cent, from the date of suit to date of realization, together with the amount of the decree. At the foot of the petition a note was made that the plaintiff consented to the adjournment, on the undertaking of the judgment-debtor to pay interest from the date of suit at 12 per cent. The Court then passed the following order : 'As the decree-holder consents, the sale is postponed for six weeks to enable the judgment-debtor to dispose of his property by private sale, if he can do so.'2. The order of the Court professes to proceed on the consent of the decree-holder, and from the ci...
Tag this Judgment!Narasayya Vs. Venkatakrishnayya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-22-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad397
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The 649th Section of the Code includes under the term 'the Court which passed the decree' a Court which would, at the time of the presentation of the application for execution, have had jurisdiction to entertain the suit by reason that the Court in which the suit was instituted had been abolished. The District Court then was in this case competent to act under Section 223 of the Civil Procedure Code and we have only to consider whether, in empowering it to transfer a decree for execution to any Court subordinate thereto, the legislature intended that the term ' any Court ' should bear its ordinary signification and include a Court which ordinarily would not be competent to entertain the application, because the subject-matter would be in excess of the limits of its pecuniary jurisdiction.2. It is to be noticed that, in empowering the High Court or District Court to transfer suits, the competency of Courts in respect of jurisdiction is kept in view, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Amina Vs. the Queen Empress
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-18-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad277
Hutchins, J.1. We see no reason to question the correctness of the findings of the Judge, in which the Assessors concurred.2. We also think he was right in accepting the opinion of the Assessors to the effect that the girl was sold 'as a slave.' They stated that the use of the word 'vellati,' as understood by Mapillas in North Malabar, clearly showed the girl was sold as a slave and not otherwise.3. As regards the appellant, Amina, it was contended by counsel, first, that it was not conclusively shown that the girl was sold as a slave; secondly, that, even if so, there is no reason to suppose that appellant knew that she was doing anything contrary to custom. ,4. The second contention may be of some force in considering the punishment awarded, but cannot affect the question as to the offence.5. The following cases were referred to and considered : The Queen v. Mirza Sikundar Bukhut I.L.R. 2 All. 723 and Empress v. Ram Kuar 1871 NWP 146.6. The facts in the latter case differ materially ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkata Vs. Muttusami
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-12-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad314
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Brandt, J.1. An appeal from the Subordinate Judge ordinarily lies to the District Judge : the Subordinate Judge's Court is therefore subordinate to the District Court, and the Subordinate Judge's Court standing in that relation to the District Court, the District Judge has jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to revoke or grant a sanction granted or refused by the Subordinate Judge.2. There was material on which the District Court could determine whether there was ground for inquiry.3. The application is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Ramasami Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-1884
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Mad292
Kernan, J.1. The appellant, Ramasami Nayak, was convicted before the Sessions Judge of Madura of making a false charge (Section 211, Indian Penal Code) of theft of a vatti (bowl) against Subbammal. He appealed to this Court on four grounds, and his appeal was dismissed on all the grounds except the fourth by Mr. Justice HUTCHINS, who directed the appeal on that ground to be heard by two Judges.2. The fourth ground is that the appellant was entitled to have his evidence in support of the charge of theft considered by the Magistrate before sanction was given for his prosecution. To understand the value of this objection it must be recollected that the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 101, provides that, except as thereafter provided, Magistrates may take cognizance of any offence--(a) on receiving a complaint, (b) on Police reports, (c) on information.3. Section 195 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of the offences therein mentioned, and amongst others, an offence under Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›