Court : Chennai Madurai
S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. This reference has been made by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, under Section 395(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, raising as many as five questions of law for a decision by this court. Before going into the said questions, let us have a quick look into the back ground of the reference. 2. This is a case of death in a police encounter. The victim of the encounter was one Mr.Kittu @ Kittappa. The occurrence was on 13.06.2015. The police team was headed by a Sub Inspector of Police. He used a fire arm in the encounter. The said Sub Inspector of Police made a report about the occurrence upon which a case was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.119/2015 on the file of Suthamalli Police Station in Tirunelveli District. The said case was initially investigated by one Mr.N.Krishnaraj, the Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District. On his intimation, Mr.M.K.Mayakrishnan, the lear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for both sides.2. This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of Crime No.398/2007, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiruchengode.3. It has been stated that the petitioner is the father of N.Divya, who had died, on 16.7.2007, while she was pursuing her plus one course, in Vidya Vikas Higher Secondary School (for Girls), Thiruchengode, Namakkal District.4. It has been further stated that the petitioner s daughter, N.Divya, had died, under suspicious circumstances. Therefore, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct a fresh investigation and inquiry, in respect of Crime No.398/2007, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Thiurchengode.5. It has been further stated tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, in S.C.No.184 of 2011 dated 29.04.2015.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant, the sole Accused in S.C.No.184 of 2011 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, who stands convicted for offence under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and under Section 27 of The Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for offence under Section 307 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad33
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The powers of the Government of British India to make laws and exercise jurisdiction over British subjects outside British India but within the territories of Princes of States in India in alliance with the British Government, are declared in and regulated by English Statute Law.2. By the Indian Council's Act 1861, power was given to the Governor-General in Council at meetings for making laws and regulations to make, inter alia, laws and regulations for European British subjects, being servants of the Government of India within the dominions of Princes and States in alliance with Her Majesty. By 28 Vic., Cap. 17, this power was enlarged so as to enable the same authority to make laws for all British subjects of Her Majesty in the places before mentioned; and the doubts which had arisen as to the power of the same authority to make laws binding on Native Indian subjects in the same places were set at rest by 32 and 33 Vic., Cap. 98....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad11
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. The Sessions Judge, in answer to Proceedings of this Court, No. 36, dated 16th January 1882, reports that he did not fix a time as directed by Section 278, and that the prisoner was in jail.2. It is to meet such a case that the agent of the party is entitled to appear and that a day should be fixed.3. The Judge says that a general notice is posted in his Court stating that appeals will be heard for admission only on the first Court day next after presentation. This practice is not a compliance with the Act.4. There is no presumption that the lowest class of people who cannot read know of this practice. A time is by law required to be fixed in each case.5. The order passed is set aside. The Sessions Judge is directed to fix a time and to rehear the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad22
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The Second-class Magistrate convicted the accused of theft and escape from lawful custody.2. The sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment awarded for teh latter offence must be set aside.3. The custody of the fifth and sixth witnesses--a Talyari and a Totti respectively--from which the prisoner is said have escaped was not a lawful custody, as the offence of theft was not committed in the presence of either of them (Criminal Procedure Code, section 1051), and they are not Police officers.4. The Queen v. M. Sins/p>Order accordingly.1. Section 105 - Any private person may arrest any person who, in his view, eommits a non-bailable and cognizable offence....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad20
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The Second-class Magistrate tried 14 persons together and convicted Nos. 1, 4, 7, 9, and 13 under Section 291, and the remainder under Section 290, Indian Penal Code.2. The District Magistrate submits that in trying 14 persons accused of distinct offences at the same time, the Magistrate committed an irregularity calculated to prejudice the accused.3. We are of opinion that the accused persons must undoubtedly have been prejudiced by the several charges having been disposed of in one trial, and direct that the convictions be quashed and the fines levied refunded to the several accused persons.4. Ordered accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad23
1. In this case the prisoner has been tried and convicted of criminal breach of trust as a carrier under Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and 500 rupees fine, or, in default, to be rigorously imprisoned for a further period of 15 months. The prisoner was originally tried for this offence in 1869, but the High Court, on the 10th January 1870, ordered a retrial. Prisoner however escaped as he was being brought back from the Cannanore Jail and has only lately been rearrested.2. The evidence for the prosecution tends to show that certain rice was entrusted at Mangalore to prisoner, who was the tindal of a pattimar, for conveyance to one Kesava Naick at Calicut. After prisoner got to sea, instead of taking his pattimar to Calicut, he went off to Goa and there sold the rice.3. In the case, as formerly tried, it was held by the High Court that, assuming that the deviation of prisoner from his course took place beyond a marine l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad157
Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.1. The accused in this case was convicted under Section 290, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment, to undergo a brief term of rigorous imprisonment.2. The fine was paid, but the District Magistrate submits that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine is of questionable legality, the offence of nuisance being punishable with fine only.3. The imprisonment allowed by law mentioned in Clause 3 of Section 309, Criminal Procedure Code, would, in the present case, be imprisonment under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, and the imprisonment awardable under that section of the Penal Code is not restricted to simple imprisonment. We think, therefore, that the award of rigorous imprisonment was not illegal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad158
Innes, J.1. The conviction is right and the sentence not improper; but the High Court has only lately ruled, in accordance with Section 439* of the Criminal Procedure Code that when an accused person is liable to be punished under the Whipping Act, the charge must state the liability (Circular No. 2686, dated 20th December 1851).2. It has been repeatedly directed also that the judgment should set out the grounds of the liability to punishment under the Whipping Act when that punishment is imposed.3. The Sessions Judge should not have ignored the instructions of the High Court.*Charge to state offence.[Section 439 : The charge shall state the offence with which the accused person is charged.Specific name of offence, sufficient statement.If the law which creates the offence gives it any specific name, the offence may be described in the charge by that name only.How stated where offence has no specific name.If the law which creates the offence does not give it any specific name, so much o...
Tag this Judgment!