Chennai Court July 1930 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.
Rudraraju Ramaraju Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad973; 129Ind.Cas.77
ORDERPandalai, J.1. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence of mischief and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. The mischief complained of was that he dumped a hundred cartloads of earth upon a portion of survey No. 113 in the zamindari village of Kalagumpudi which is included in the Peddamamidipalli estate. The prosecution was launched by the Revenue Inspector upon the footing that the survey number on which the earth was dumped was Government land, that the said land was used as a thoroughfare and that the dumping of earth upon it had diminished its utility as a thoroughfare. But by the evidence given by the accused it was clearly shown that the land was not Government land and it is not now disputed that it is part of a zamindari of which the proprietor is D.W. 1. But the Courts below have held that even so the land is what is called a puntha' (a thoroughfare for men and cattle), and that the unauthorized dumping of earth upon it amounts to mischief and therefore the petitio...
Janardhanam Vs. Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad977; 129Ind.Cas.74
ORDERPandalai, J.1. This is an application to revise the conviction of the petitioner by the Third Presidency Magistrate for an offence under Section 408, I.P.C., for which he was sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. The ground alleged is that the trial before the Magistrate is vitiated by the illegality that after the charge was framed and the accused had pleaded 'not guilty,' the question whether he wished to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses was put to him on the same day and that because the petitioner was undefended this was an illegality which could not be cured.2. The facts are that after the prosecution witnesses were examined on 5th June 1930 the accused was charged and he pleaded 'not guilty.' The Magistrate's record then contains the following:He (the accused) wants to further cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The accused is undefended. I therefore have not adjourned the case to another date to put this question.3. The case was accordingly a...
Konda Reddi and ors. Vs. Mangala Babanna
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Mad854; (1930)59MLJ458
ORDERHorace Owen Compton Beasley, C.J.1. Four persons including the appellants in Criminal Revision Case No. 968 of 1929 (Accused 2 and 3) and the appellant in Criminal Revision Case No. 969 of 1929 (Accused 5) were convicted by the Joint Magistrate of Penukonda for offences under Sections 347 and 384, Indian Penal Code, for wrongful confinement to extort property and extortion.2. The facts can be dealt with quite shortly and they are that on the 3rd December, 1927, a document was registered by the District Registrar at Anantapur, the material portions of which ran as follows:Deed of sale caused to be written and given to Nethi Narayanappa of Pandurthi. To discharge debts due to others for the purchase of mango trees, I have received from you in cash this day Rs. 300. The land sold to you for this sum is S. No. 882, extent O.71 acres with the various fruit trees standing therein. I have put you in possession this day, Henceforward you will have all my rights. My heirs and I will have n...
In Re: Periyaswami Moopan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-14-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.645; (1930)59MLJ471
Waller, J.1. I agree that Exhibit G is a statement that should not have been taken into consideration against the 1st accused. He and the maker of the statement were being jointly tried for murder and Exhibit G was not a confession of murder jointly affecting both. The law on the point was correctly laid down by Straight, ]., many years ago in the Allahabad case Empress of India v. Ganraj I.L.R. (1879) A. 444 cited by my learned brother. As regards the case Shivabhai v. Emperor I.L.R. (1926) B. 683 a statement by one of the accused that he by himself had burnt the clothes of a murdered man and would show the place was treated as a confession of participation in the murder and admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act against him. To that extent, the decision seems to be correct, but when it goes on to put forward some circumstantial grounds on which the Judges held that the confession 'indirectly affected' another accused not named in it and could, therefore, be vised against him...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›