Chennai Court November 1948 Judgments
In Re: Muthiah thevan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad10
Govinda Menon, J.1. This case, again illustrates, the inconvenience and difficulties experienced especially by a Court of appeal when the doctor who speaks to the post mortem examination of the body is examined as the very first witness for the prosecution. We feel that if the doctor had been examined after the eye-witnesses' testimony had been recorded, the learned Sessions Judge would have been in a much better position to have an overall idea of the entire prosecution case so that he would have been in a better situation to put proper questions to the doctor to elucidate fully the nature of the injuries.2. The appellants were accused 2 and 3 respectively in the Court below. Appellant 1 has been sentenced to death for the murder of Veeranna by cutting him at about 6 A. M. on 29th March 1948. Appellant 2 was also charged along with the first for the same offence; but the learned Sessions Judge found him not guilty of having any common intention with Appellant 1 to commit the murder, a...
Tag this Judgment!Pugalumperumal Pillai Vs. Thangathammal
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-30-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ389
Govinda Menon, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Rajamannar, J., as he then was, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin, in A.S. No. 10 of 1944, which in its turn reversed: the decree of the District Munsiff of Tuticorin in O.S. No. 236 of 1942. As the facts and circumstances have been stated in great detail in the judgment appealed against, we do not consider it necessary to set them out at all. What the true construction of the deed of gift dated 8th May, 1905, executed by Pichiyarammal in favour of her daughter Veeraperumal Ammal is, is the only subject of controversy. If the donee Veeraperumal Ammal took the property the subject-matter of the gift, as an absolute property, then, the appellant necessarily fails. If, on the other hand, what was donated under Ex. P-7 in favour of Veeraperumal Ammal is only a life estate, or a woman's estate as is known under the Hindu law, then it is the common case that the appe...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.B. Tonse and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: AIR1950Mad22
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The three charges against the petitioners were (1) that in the mouth of April or May 1946 they cheated Albert Correa, P. W. 10, at Verapurzha in Travancore State, (2) that about the month of March 1946 they cheated P. W. 11, V. Hormis, at Cheranallur in Cochin state and (3) that in about February 1946, again at Cheranallur in Cochin, they cheated P. W. 12, M. C. Simon, and that they committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 37, Penal Code, The petitioners have applied to have these charges quashed.2. On the date of the offences complained of the accused were 'native Indian subjects of His Majesty within the meaning of Section 4, Clause (1), Penal Code, as it stood on that date. The offences were alleged to have been committed in Travancore and Cochin which were beyond 'British India' within the meaning of Section 4(1), Penal Code. Section 188, Criminal P. C., prescribed the sanction of the political agent or of a local Government before cr...
Tag this Judgment!Public Prosecutor Vs. R. Desigan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ931
Somasundaram, J.1. The accused in this case was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Ddvakottai in 0. 0. No, 275 of 1947 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 for an offence under Clause 4 (a) of the Madras Rationing Pre-paratory Measures Order, 1945 and Regn. 14 of the regulations framed under Clause 12 of the Madras Rationing Order, 1945, and under K. 81 (2), Defence of India Rules read with Section 7(l) of Act xxiv [24] of 1946. The accused preferred an ap-peal to the Sessions Judge of Ramnad who acquitted him. The Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal.2. The main ground on which the order of acquittal is attacked is that under Section 414, Criminal P. 0,, no appeal lies against this judgment of the First Class Magistrate as the case was tried summarily under Section 260, Criminal P, C. That Section mentions what offences and classes of offences may be tried summarily under that section. It does not in terms provide for the trial of...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Vanka Bhimaraju
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ839
ORDERRajagopalan, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under B. 39 for contravention of Rule 27-A of the Rules framed under Section 20 (2) (f), Madras Prevention of Adulteration Act; under the same Section 22 (2) (f), he was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100.2. The accused did not deny that the oil which was found in his possession contained 50 per cent, of gingelly oil and 50 per cent, of groundnut oil. The accused pleaded from the commencement that be kept that oil not for sale as food but for sale as lamp oil. The learned trial Magistrate apparently did not accept that defence. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate on appeal held that even if that composition was kept by the accused for sale as lamp oil that was in contravention of Rule 27-A.3. Assuming for the purposes of this case that the defence was true and the composition was kept by the accused for sale as lamp oil, The Public Prosecutor v. Kachi Mohideen Marakayar : AIR1948Mad218 , should really conclude the question at issue of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. Sannidhi Sriranganayakulu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: 1949CriLJ893
Rajagopalan, J.1. The charge against the accused was that he contravened the provisions of Section 5(1)(b) of the Prevention of Adulteration Act, Act III of 1918, and thereby rendered himself liable to be punished under Section 5(1)(d) of that Act2. P.W. 1 was the Sanitary Inspector of Akkiveedu. When he called at the shop of the accused, P.W. 1, found the accused selling honey to P.W. 2. After the honey had been handed over to P.W. 2, P.W. 1 in his turn asked for some honey to be sold to him as a sample. The accused refused to sell any honey to P.W. 1. P.W. 2 had not in the meanwhile, paid for the honey that had been sold to him. P.W. 1 obtained that honey and when it was analysed it was found to contain 36 per cent. of cane sugar.3. The learned Subordinate Judge convicted the accused under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25. On appeal, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused. The learned Magistrate he...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.N.G. Sundarajalu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: 1950CriLJ87
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The point arising in this revision petition has already been the subject of a pronouncement by me in the decision reported in The Public Prosecutor v. Eamalingeswara. swami, 1948 M. W. N. 684 : A.I.R. 1949 Mad. 271; but Mr. E. Gopalaawami Aiyangar for the petitioner in his interesting and able argument has sought to question the correctness of that decision and out of deference to his learned arguments I shall state briefly the reasons why I adhere to the views already propounded by me in the case mentioned above.2. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam of an offence Under Section 7 (2), War Risk (Goods) Insurance Ordinance IX [9] of 1940 and sentenced to a fine of Es. 500. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjore con-firmed the conviction and sentence and this revision petition is a further attempt by the petitioner to canvass the correctness of his conviction and sentence. There is no dispute regardin...
Tag this Judgment!The Public Prosecutor Vs. R. Desigan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: (1949)2MLJ16
1. The accused in this case was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Devakottai in C.C. No. 275 of 1947 and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100 for an offence under Clause 4(2) of the Madras Rationing Preparatory Measures Order, 1945, and regulation 14 of the regulations framed under, Clause 12 of the Madras Rationing Order, 1945, and under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules read with Section 7(1) of Act XXIV of 1946. The accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge of Ramnad who acquitted him. The Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal. 2. The main ground on which the order of acquittal is attacked is that under Section 414, Criminal Procedure Code, no appeal lies against this judgment of the First Class Magistrate as the case was tried summarily under Section 260, Criminal Procedure Code. That section mentions what offences and classes of offences may be tried summarily under that section. It does not in terms provide for the...
Tag this Judgment!Yellapragada Gopalakrishnamurthi Vs. Pettu Poda Madireddi and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ240
ORDER1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of possession of one acre of land out of 2 acres and 45 cents in Demarcation No. 612/1 in the village of Chandola was dismissed by the Courts below.2. One Manthona Butchi Raju and others were co-owners of a plot of land of the extent of 8 acres comprised in Demarcation Nos. 604/2, 606/1 and 612/1. On the 18th of March, 1929, they agreed to sell the land for a sum of Rs. 3,700 to one P. Venkateswarlu. An advance of Rs. 450 was paid that day under a contract of sale, Ex. D-4. The third defendant in the present suit who claims rights under that contract from P. Venkateswarlu paid on 2nd July, 1929, a sum of Rs. 950 to two of the co-owners, and obtained a receipt, Ex. D-5. She was in possession of the land ever since through her lessees, defendants 1 and 2, in the present suit. Ex. D-6 series are leases in their favour and the third defendant was also paying taxes on the land as is evidenced by Ex. D-7 series. On the 2nd Ma...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: A.N.G. Sundararajulu Chetty
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-26-1948
Reported in: (1949)1MLJ605
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The point arising in this revision petition has already been the subject of a pronouncement by me in the decisions reported in the Public Prosecutor v. Ramalingaswamy : (1948)2MLJ351 , but Mr. R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar for the petitioner in his interesting and able argument has sought to question the correctness of that decision and out of deference to his learned arguments I shall state briefly the reasons why I adhere to the view already propounded by me in the case mentioned above.2. The petitioner was convicted by the Additional First Class Magistrate of Kumbakonam of an offence under Section 7(2) of the War Risks (Goods) Insurance Ordinance (IX of 1940) and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge' of West Tanjore confirmed the conviction and sentence and this revision petition is a further attempt by the petitioner to canvass the correctness of his conviction and sentence. There is no dispute regarding the circumstances which le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »