Chennai Court June 1970 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.
Periaswamy Alias Ma Iraivan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ442
B.S. Somasundaram, J.1. Solomon Rajayya, P. W. 1 was the Tahasildar at Aranthangi. On the 20th October, 1968, the revision petitioner went to his house and questioned him about the re-instatement of a Village Headman. There was a wordy altercation between the two. The latter suggested that the former was not doing it, because he had received some illegal gratification. The Tahsildar said that if that was the case he might lay a complaint before the vigilance officers. The petitioner then said that he would leave the place only after shoeing him. P. Ws. 2 and 3 who were then present pacified him. This is all what happened on that day. The Tahsildar gave a complaint. Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under sections 451, 353 and 355 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him for all the three offences and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under each count. On appeal, the District Magistrate held that no offence under Section 355 of the Indian Pen...
Bheru Manufacturing Co. Vs. the Collector of Customs and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-17-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ709
K. Veeraswami, C.J.1. The two questions common to these matters are: (1) as to the validity of adjudication proceedings initiated under Section 23 (1) (a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 ; and (2) as to the jurisdiction of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, to investigate into contravention of the provisions mentioned in Section 23 (1), more particularly offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with such contravention, as well as under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 511 of the same Code. Kailasam, J., decided them against the parties affected in two of these cases from which the writ appeals arise. The learned Judge, however, confined the jurisdiction of the Special Police Establishment to investigate into the alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, but appeared to think that the fact that while they investigated into a cognizable offence, certain facts amounting to an offence under special Acts emerged, ...
Roja Kamalam Vs. the State
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1970
Reported in: AIR1971Mad41; 1971CriLJ61
ORDER1. One Roja Kamalam was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for an offence under Section 380, I.P.C. by the Sub-Magistrate, Ulundurpet in C. C. No. 1571 of 1969 on his file. The age of this accused was taken as 21 by the learned Magistrate. There was an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ulundurpet in C. A. 45 of 1969, and before him the appellant-accused produced a medical certificate to show that here age was about 20. While disposing of this appeal, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the conviction and remanded the case to the Sub-Magistrate, observing that the matter should be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, if the age was found to be 20.2. There can be no remand of a case for the purpose of passing a proper sentence. Under Section 423(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellate courts has power to reverse the finding and sentence and either acquit or discharge the accused or ord...
In Re: Ramamoorthy
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jun-16-1970
Reported in: (1970)2MLJ457
ORDERB.S. Somasundaram, J.1. Ramamoorthy, the petitioner in these two revision petitions, was the Agricultural Extension Officer in the Theni Panchayat Union between July, 1966 and April, 1967. During this period, he was entrusted with manure and seeds valued at Rs. 5,994-92 for sale to the ryots. The amount realised by him by such sales was not remitted by him into the Treasury. He was also entrusted with 300 cocoanut seedlings, 500 kgs. of sevin dust, and 2,400 kgs. of C.C. 25 paddy seeds during his tenure, for sale to the ryots. He failed to deposit Rs. 156, value of 130 cocoanut seedlings, Rs. 18-40, value of 8 kgs. of sevin dust and Rs. 24-80, value of 40 kgs. of paddy seeds. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code in two cases.2. Thiru Suruliraj, the Commissioner of the Panchayat Union, deposed to the entrustment, the sale and the non-remittance. This evidence was given by him with reference to the stock register maintained in the office. The lea...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›