Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1938)2MLJ583
ORDERBurn, J.1. The question of the propriety of the conviction under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is the only point argued before me. The facts found are that the petitioner twice stopped the complainant by force, catching hold of his bandy bull. This is quite enough to sustain the conviction under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1938)1MLJ509
ORDERBurn, J.1. The contention that the Stationary Sub-Magistrate's warrant was not issued under Section 5 of the Gaming Act cannot be accepted. The contents of the warrant show, as the learned Joint Magistrate has very properly observed that it was in fact issued under Section 5 of the Gaming Act. I may remark that there is no prescribed form for warrants under Section 5 of the Gaming Act, and moreover that section does not require the Magistrate to record anywhere his reasons for believing any information the police may have given him. It does not even require him to record the fact that he has reason to believe that any place is used as a common gaming-house. All that it requires is that the Magistrate shall have reason to believe...; if he has, he can issue his warrant, not in any particular form, but his warrant giving authority to a Police Officer to do certain things. The requirements of Section 5 are here complied with, and the learned Joint Magistrate decided rightly that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad656; (1938)1MLJ670
Burn, J.1. This is a case of an unusual kind. In fact I am informed that it is the first case of its kind. The appellant in C.A. No. 456 of 1937 was the first accused and the appellant in C.A. No. 465 of 1937 was the second accused in S.C. No. 22 of 1937 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge of Guntur. Along with them two Muhammadans were tried and the charges upon which they were put up for trial were that the first accused kidnapped a minor boy from lawful guardianship with intent that he should be murdered (Section 364, Indian Penal Code). The second, third and fourth accused were charged with abetment of this offence. The learned Sessions Judge found the first accused guilty of an offence under Section 363, Indian Penal Code, holding it not proved that the kidnapping was in order that the little boy might be murdered. The first accused has been sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. The second accused was convicted of abetment o the offence under Section 363, Indian Penal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1938)1MLJ809
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The Presidency Magistrate has found that the petitioner has been keeping a tea-shop without a license. On the 5th of June, the petitioner received a letter from the Corporation informing him that Ms license would not be renewed because he had not provided proper drainage. He replied explaining that he had supplied proper drainage and asked that a license should be granted to him. He also deposited the license fee. No answer was sent by the Corporation; and as the petitioner continued to conduct the tea-shop this prosecution was launched. The Presidency Magistrate has found the accused guilty of contravening the bye-laws and fined him Re. 1, at the same time finding that the Corporation acted unconscionably in refusing the renewal of the license as there has been no laches on the part of the petitioner.2. On these findings, the conviction is not sustainable. Although under Section 365(6) of the City Municipal Act, the petitioner must be deemed to have been without a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1938)2MLJ750
Burn, J.1. This is a case of a somewhat unusual kind. The appellant is alleged to have gone to a house where preparations were being made for a marriage at about 1-30 A.M. on the 18th August, 1937, and there to have shot the father of the bridegroom with a revolver and killed him. The learned Sessions Judge of Coimbatore has found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him to death.2. The facts are quite simple. The deceased was the maternal uncle of the appellant and there was bitter enmity between the two branches of the family. It was alleged that about two years ago the appellant was trying to secure for his elder brother the daughter of Sundarammal (P.W. 7) but P.W. 7 rejected this alliance as she disapproved of the appellant's family. After that it is said that about six months before this occurrence one Ponnusami who was employed by the deceased wanted to marry the same girl. His offer also was refused and he is said to have left the service of the deceased. After this a m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad536; (1938)1MLJ667
Burn, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government from an order of acquittal. The facts are not disputed. The respondent was arrested by a process-server (P.W. 1) of the Court of the District Munsif of Kurnool on 3rd October, 1936. The order for his arrest was passed by the District Munsif in execution of a decree of a Panchayat Court. The respondent signed on the warrant but did not go with the process-server to the Court. He told the process-server that he would pay the money and then went into his house and refused to come thereafter. The next day when the process-server went to his house again, the accused was not to be found.2. The learned Sub-Magistrate found these facts established but considered that the respondent was not guilty of any offence because the arrest warrant had been signed by the Head Clerk of the District Munsif's Court. He found that the Head Clerk had been authorised to sign arrest warrants in the time of the former District Munsif. But the District Munsif in char...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad578; (1938)1MLJ875
Stodart, J.1. The petitioner is the decree-holder. On a promissory note purporting to be executed by a father and a son and a third party she obtained a decree against the father only, exonerating the other two. She now tries to execute the decree on property in the hands of the son and has been repulsed in both the Courts below.2. It is the fact that at the time when the debt was contracted the father and son were undivided (15th July, 1931), but by the time of suit (28th October, 1933), they had become divided.3. Petitioner's case is that on a decree obtained after partition against the father alone she ought to be able to proceed against property-in the hands of the son. That is against all the current of decisions in this Court. When the petitioner filed her suits she should have prayed for a decree against the son to the extent of the latter's interest in the family property and in the alternative in case the son had become divided to the extent of the family property which the so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad535; (1938)1MLJ485
ORDERBurn, J.1. The learned Joint Magistrate's decision is in my opinion correct. He has quite properly declined to attempt a complete definition of the term 'cart-stand' as used in Section 270-E of the District Municipalities Act. He has confined his attention to the particular facts of the case before him and has held that the petitioner's shed at Tiruvarur is a cart-stand within the meaning of the Act. The finding is that the petitioner's buses are taken to the shed on arrival at Tiruvarur, that the passengers alight at the shed, and the new passengers for the return journey take their seats in the buses there. The buses do actually 'stand' in the shed; by this is meant not merely that they stop there for a shorter or longer time but that they 'stand' for the purposes of their owner's business in the sense in which we use the word in the expressions 'cab stand', 'taxi stand', and the like. There is nothing in the decisions quoted Queen-Empress v. Ayyakannu I.L.R.(1898) 21 Mad. 293 Q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad730; (1938)1MLJ863
Horwill, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of East Tanjore appointing a receiver.2. In general, a receiver will not be appointed merely because a member of a family files a suit for partition, but there are certain circumstances existing which justify the order passed by the lower Court. The plaintiff is entitled to as much as' a half of the property; and the quarrels in the family and the conduct of the first defendant have made it impossible for him in the past during the pendency of the suit to get his fair share of the harvest; and it seems probable that in spite of any precautions taken by the Court, the plaintiff will not be able to secure his fair share in the income from the property so long as it remained in the hands of the first defendant. The plaintiff is a minor who has to depend upon his mother's relatives for the safeguarding of his interests.3. The lands are situated only two miles from Negapatam, and the receiver seems to have been appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1938Mad816; (1938)2MLJ270
Venkatasubba Rao, J.1. Once the facts of this somewhat difficult case are found, the principles governing it seem well settled by authority. After having heard the matter fully argued on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the findings of the Court below are right and should be accepted.2. We are concerned here with two villages, Nadupalli and Velupucherla. The first defendant, the Zamindar owning the Medur estate, is the overlord in respect of both the villages. The plaintiffs are the mokhasadars of Velupucherla and defendants 2 to 5 of Nadupalli. It may be mentioned that the Zamindar has made common cause with the Mokhasadars of Nadupalli and as the real contest is by the latter, defendants 1 to 5 will be referred to as the defendants.3. The dispute relates to the waters of a natural stream known as Tammileru. As the lower Court points out excepting in rainy season when the current is swift, there is scanty flow; during period of scarcity a witness deposes there is a gene...
Tag this Judgment!