Chennai Court May 1893 Judgments
Queen-empress Vs. Butchi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-05-1893
Reported in: (1894)ILR17Mad401
1. There is no presumption of law that the wife and husband constitute one person in India for the purposes of criminal law. Theft is an offence against property, and where there is no community of property, each may commit theft in regard to the property of the other. The question is one of intention. If the wife, removing the husband's property from his house, does so with dishonest intention, she is guilty of theft. Her joint possession may in many oases give rise to a presumption that she had authority from her husband to give the property, but this is a presumption of fact, and it may be rebutted. The intent with which the husband's property is removed is a question of fact, and where a dishonest conversion is intended, it clearly amounts to theft.2. We set aside the Deputy Magistrate's order acquitting the first accused and direct that the appeal so far as she is concerned be restored to the file and disposed of with reference to the above observations....
Tag this Judgment!Vigneswara Sastrulu, Minor, by Next Friend Gundu Sambayya Vs. Devarapa ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ216
1. The issue sent for trial by our order of 6th December last was 'Is the suit barred by time' ?2. The Subordinate Judge has found on this issue in the negative, being of opinion that the suit is saved by the latter part of Section 8 of the Limitation Act. That section is as follows:-- 'When one of several joint creditors or claimants is under any such disability (i.e., is a minor, or insane, or an idiot at the time from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned--see Section 7), and when a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all; but when no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the others.'3. As has been observed in Anando Kishore Doss Bakshi v. Anando Kishore Bose, I. L. R 14 0 50 at p. 53, the latter part of this section applies only to a case of all the joint creditors or claimants being under a legal disa...
Tag this Judgment!Vigneswara Vs. Bapayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-04-1893
Reported in: (1893)ILR16Mad436
1. The issue sent for trial by our order of 6th December last was 'Is the suit barred by time?'2. The Subordinate Judge has found on this issue in the negative, being of opinion that the suit is saved by the latter part of Section 8 of the Limitation Act. That Section is as follows: 'When one of several joint-creditors or claimants is under any such disability (i.e., is a minor or insane or an idiot at the time from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned--see Section 7) and when a discharge can be given without the concurrence of such person, time will run against them all; but when no such discharge can be given, time will not run as against any of them until one of them becomes capable of giving such discharge without the concurrence of the others.'3. As has been observed in Auando Kishore Dass Bakshi v. Auando Kishore Bose I.L.R. 14 Cal. 56 at p. 53 the latter part of this Section applies only to a case of all the joint-creditors or claimants being under a legal disability...
Tag this Judgment!Queen Empress Vs. Veerava
Court: Chennai
Decided on: May-02-1893
Reported in: (1893)3MLJ241
1. Under Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate whose summons was disobeyed has no jurisdiction to try the offence. The rulings referred to by the Sub Magistrate are not in paint. The one reported at 4 M. H. C. R 52 is under Act VIII of 1866 and the one reported at 6 M. H. C. R 44 had reference to Act III of 1869. In the case now before us the summons disobeyed was to appear as a defence witness in Calendar Case No. 1080 of 1892 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate and there was no general prohibition as under Section 487, in the Code of 1861.2. The conviction is set aside and the fine will be refunded. The accused may be retried by a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try him for the offence. Ordered accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›