Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-08-1882
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
Decided on : Feb-24-1882
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
Decided on : Feb-24-1882
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
Decided on : Feb-26-1882
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
Decided on : Mar-14-1882
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
Decided on : Mar-15-1882
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!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-24-1882
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad160
Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and Kernan, J.1. The provisions of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1872, are inapplicable as is pointed out by the referring officer. When the complainant is required to pay fees for summoning witnesses under Section 361, and fails to do so, the Magistrate must deal with the case on such evidence as he may have before him. We set aside the order under Section 205, and direct the Magistrate to fix a date and dispose of the case accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-28-1882
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad199
1. The accused were convicted under Section 173, Indian Penal Code, for having refused to receive summonses issued to them by a Village Munsif, and each was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 2, in and, default of payment, to simple imprisonment for five days. The referring officer submits that the act of the accused cannot amount to the offence of having intentionally prevented the service of summons, and cites the judgment of this Court in Revision Case No. 155 of 1881.12. Service is usually made by delivering to, and leaving with, the party the summons, though under Section 154,2 Criminal Procedure Code, tender is sufficient. We think that a refusal to receive a summons is not an offence under Section 173; the words 'any manner prevents the service' cannot apply when the summons is tendered and refused, as it is good service. We set aside the conviction, and the fines, if levied, must be refunded.1 The Queen v. Arumuga Nadan. The Judgment of the High Court (Innes and Kindersley, JJ.) was as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-01-1882
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad313
1. In the ceremonial worship conducted at Chinna Conjeeveram there is pronounced the Thodakam or invitation to prayer given by uttering the word Sathitarula. This is followed by the Mantram or address to a spiritual teacher and Sevakalam or chant of some verses of a Tamil hymn, Prabhandam.2. The Brahman who pronounces the Thodakam is known as the Thodakagar. His office is regarded as one of considerable dignity, and entitles him to certain honours and emoluments. He receives a rice cake known as Arulapadu and a garland and cloth, and is provided with a gold crown. He also partakes of the emoluments of the Brahmans who proclaim the Mantram and chant the Sevakalam. It is admitted that the office and emoluments of these assistants are known as the Adhiapaka Miras.3. The plaintiffs, who are Vaishnavite Brahmans of the Tenkalai sect, claim for the members of their caste and sect the Adhiapaka Miras in the pagoda of Sri Devarajaswami and seventeen other Vjagodas, and they assert that the Tho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-05-1882
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad378a
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. Having regard to the statement made by the complainant, we think that the complaint should have been treated as one of voluntary hurt. The Second-class Magistrate was therefore in error in treating it as one of criminal force and allowing it to be withdrawn.2. Considering, however, that the complainant himself treated the violence used to him as amounting to criminal force, and that it is nearly three months since the complaint has been withdrawn, we are of opinion that no further proceedings in the case are necessary....
Tag this Judgment!