Chennai Court December 1911 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.
Emperor Vs. Arumukhama Pillai
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-04-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.780
ORDERAyling, J.1. In this case the accused, a ferry contractor, has been convicted of an offence under Section 19 of Act (II of 1890), for levying excess tolls.2. Apart from Prosecution witness No. 1, whose evidence was rightly discredited in the original Court, there is no evidence to support the conviction. The money in each case is said to have been demanded by, and paid to, a Paraya servant of the accused and in each of the several instances deposed to, the accused was either not present at the ferry at all, or on the opposite side of the river to that on which the toll was demanded and paid. Whatever suspicion may be entertained, no legal presumption can be drawn from this that the accused (in the language of the Sub-Magistrate) 'connived at the exaction made by his servant.' Apart from this, it must be pointed cui that each individual levy of excess toll constitutes a distinct offence: and that the principles embodied in Sections 233 and 234, Criminal Procedure Code, which apply ...
Nallasawmi Pillai and ors. Vs. Ramasawmi Pillay and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Dec-01-1911
Reported in: 13Ind.Cas.450
1. No question of law has been argued with regard to the validity of the alienation of any of the items except item 5. With respect to that item it is contended by the learned Vakil for the third appellant that as, according to the measurement in Exhibit VIII, the item comprised only 86 cents and as item 5 now measures 127 cents, the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the difference. The 11th defendant did not contend in his written statement that the excess was not part of the property of the deceased Navakotiapillai and no definite statement is made in this Court as to how the 11th defendant acquired it if he did not do so under the sale-deed, Exhibit VIII. The difference in measurement is apparently due only to the greater accuracy of the later measurement than of the earlier one. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court must be upheld with regard to this item also.2. The first respondent in his memo, of objections contends that the award of Rs. 150 for improvement made in item...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›