Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad245
Innes, J.1. In this case the property on which the alleged offence was committed belonged to two widows, who being issueless, had brought up fifth and sixth defendants as their sons. These persons had the management of the property. A disagreement arising between them and the widows, the latter made over the property to the Manager of the Vishnu Pagoda at Tirukoilur by a mortgage-deed under which he was authorized to take possession of the property. This person leased the property to defendants 1 to 3 on a cowle. These, with fourth defendant and others not charged, made forcible entry into the land and have been convicted of rioting and sentenced to a moderate term of imprisonment, which, in appeal, was made still lighter. Defendants 5 to 14 were discharged as having only defended their possession.2. Mr. Norton contends that fifth and sixth defendants cannot be regarded as having been in possession on behalf of the widows as their managers; that the rightful possession was with the les...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1884)ILR6Mad203
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. In 1875 the Muhammadans applied for permission to erect a mosque in Sevvaipett on the site occupied by the mosque recently destroyed, but the Hindus objected and the application was refused. The Muhammadans nevertheless, it would seem, occupied the site, and in 1878 again applied for permission to build the mosque. The Hindus opposed the application : they intimated their apprehension that the erection of the mosque would lead to disturbances when they were conducting their processions with music or celebrating ceremonies in the temples adjoining the river.2. The Collector, Mr. Longley, accorded sanction to the erection of the mosque on condition that the Muhammadans undertook to allow the free passage of processions; but, professing to act as District - Magistrate, he at the same time ordered that all music should cease when any procession was passing or repassing the mosque; and he directed that this order should be notified to the inhabitants of Sevvai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad249
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code are sot in conflict with those of the Special Law, and effect may, therefore, be given to both. By Section 16(3) of the Regulation, a summary power to impose a fine is conferred on a Village Munsif analogous to that conferred on the Civil Courts by Sections 170* of the Civil Procedure Code.2. In ordinary oases when there are no aggravating circumstances, the Village Munsif or Civil Court would act discreetly in employing the special powers conferred on it, but if a charge is instituted in a Criminal Court under the Indian Penal Code, it must be dealt with by the Court. The order referred must be set aside and the Magistrate directed to resummon the accused and to complete the trial.* Procedure if witness fails to appear.[Section 170:-If such person does not appear, or appearing, fails to satisfy the Court that he did not abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the summons, and that he had not notice of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad252
Innes and Kernan, JJ.1. We think the Vakil, third prisoner, was improperly put upon his trial on a charge under Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Having been called upon, in an enquiry under the Legal Practitioners' Act, to explain his conduct, it was not competent to the Court which conducted the enquiry to take a statement from him on solemn affirmation. He was not, therefore, in such proceeding legally bound by an oath to speak the truth, and, if he stated what was false, did not render himself amenable to the charge of' making a false statement under Section 181, Indian Penal Code, or giving false evidence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code.3. The conviction as to this prisoner must be quashed, and his immediate discharge ordered.4. With regard to the cases of the other two prisoners, we are of opinion that the enquiry under the Legal Practitioners' Act was a judicial proceeding, and that false statements on solemn affirmation made by the witnesses should have been charged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad283
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The complainant applied to the Magistrate for an order directing her husband to pay her maintenance. The parties came to terms, the husband agreeing that he would furnish his wife with certain ornaments, build a house for her, deliver to her annually a certain amount of grain, and pay her a certain sum in cash.2. This agreement the parties brought to the notice of the Magistrate, who, reciting their concurrence, declared that he passed judgment in accordance with the agreement on 12th December 1882. No formal order has been drawn. It appeared to this Court that the law empowers a Magistrate only to direct payment of a monthly maintenance, and that such an agreement as the parties entered into cannot he made the subject of an order under Section 536 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nor enforced under the provisions of that section.3. We direct, in supersession of the direction - of the Magistrate, that the agreement be placed on the record and the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1885)ILR6Mad286
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. As ruled by this Court on third December 1872, it was not lawful for the Senior Assistant Magistrate to direct payment of part of the fine as compensation to an innocent purchaser of stolen property. The sale to the purchaser is not the offence complained of within the meaning of Section 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The sentence of the Senior Assistant Magistrate will be amended by striking out the words 'of which Rs. 4-8-0 will be paid to Mr. Lewin, who purchased the ring for that amount.'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad316
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner complained to the Magistrate that, in consequence of her having widened a path by which her cattle were taken to pasture, K. Sankara Bhatta, I). M. Sankara Narayana Bhatta, Shambu alias Muttu Bhatta, and Sanku came to her verandah, inquired why she had widened the path, and abused her for it; that Sankara Bhatta pushed her on the neck, and, taking a switch of Maderi, struck her twice with it on the back; and that, fearing the other accused would also strike her, she entered the house. She added that the marks left by the blows were still visible.2. She was examined on her complaint; and it is recorded that she repeated her charge against Sankara Bhatta, that she admitted the other persons accused had not assaulted her, but explained that she included them in the complaint because they had stood by and abused her while Sankara was striking her.3. The Magistrate made a note that there were marks of blows on the complainant's back.4. It will b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad336
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.1. The Judge has submitted this case for orders under the following circumstances.2. The accused, with other persons who have been acquitted, was tried on charges, of which some were, at the time the trial commenced, triable by a jury and others were not so triable. In accordance with the practice then obtaining, the jurors were empanelled as assessors in respect of the charges they were not competent to try as jurors.3. The trial was-protracted, and, before its conclusion, Act X of 1882 came into force. That Act, Section 269, prescribes that, where on a trial some charges are triable by a jury and others are not ordinarily so triable, all the charges shall be tried by a jury; and the Judge considers that the operation of the Act in this case was to convert the persons empanelled as assessors into jurors in respect of the charges they commenced to try as assessors. Inasmuch as the accused was convicted by the jury on one of those charges, and the Judge found...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad371
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. About ten years ago the defendant married the complainant, and for some time they lived together. Then the defendant married a second wife, and the complainant left him and lived in her father's house for about six years. In March 1882 she applied to a Magistrate for an order of maintenance, but she withdrew her complaint on the defendant offering to maintain her in case she lived with him. She since lived in his house and grain was given her, but she was told to cook her own food separately, and she was not permitted to eat with the defendant or other inmates of the house. They appear to have quarrelled again, and she has applied for an order of maintenance, complaining of ill-treatment. She has a female child aged seven years, and the defendant is a member of a joint Hindu family under the protection of his father, who has seven sons under his control. It is in evidence that the family has sufficient means, and, in answer to the present complaint the defendant d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad372
Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking that the commitment is bad and must be quashed.2. The accused was charged with offences punishable under Sections 468* and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and cognizable exclusively by the Sessions Court. The Sub-Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that there was very little evidence to show that the document, which formed the subject of the charge, was false, and that there was no evidence to prove that the document was either made by the accused, or that he had any intent to defraud. But on perusal of the preliminary register, the District magistrate considered that there was a prima facie case against the accused, and directed his committal to the Court of Sessions, without calling upon the accused, however, to show cause why he should not be committed. The power to order a committal is conferred on the District Magistrate by Section 436, subject to the provision that the accused should have an opportunity ...
Tag this Judgment!