Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-25-1972
Reported in : 1974CriLJ61
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal arising from the conviction of the appellant Dhanalakshmi for an offence under Section 3 (1) of the Suppression of Inv moral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Act No. 104 of 1956).2. P. W. 3 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, Madras and the Special Officer to detect cases under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 (Central Act 104 of 1956). He Hot reliable information that the accused is keeping a brothel having prostitutes in her house by collecting hire charges at the rate of Rs. 50 for having sexual intercourse with the prostitute at premises No. 39 North Road West C. I. T. Nagar, Saidapet, Madras.3. On 13-10-1969, his informant told him that the brothel keeper, viz., the accused was ready to receive the visitor. P. W. 3 proposed to conduct the raid of the brothel. Necessary arrangements were made. One Dhanasekaran, P. W. 1, working as a helper in Simpson Group Co., was asked to be a decoy witness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-01-1972
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1488
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by Manickam Pillal, P. W. I. (Complainant) against the order of the Court of Session. West Thanjayur Division, Thanjavur, acquitting Kaliammal alias Kalimuthu on an offence under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The accusation against her is that on 24-11-1969 at about 7 p. m. at Orathanad she administered some substance with intent to cause miscarriage of one Padmavathi in the house of the 2nd accused Solai Ammal. which caused the death of the said Padmavathi, The 2nd accused was acquitted by the trial Judge.3. Manickam Pillai (P. W. 1) and his wife Rathinathammal (P. W. 5), his son Thangavelu (P. W. 4). his daughter-in-law Padmavathi (deceased), and his pangalis are living in the same house at Orathanad. Padmavathi was the wife of P. W. 4. They have got two daughters. Padmavathi was pregnant (four months) in November 1969. On 24-11-1969 at about 7.30 P. M. Rethinathammal, P W. 5 told her husband P. W. 1 that Padmavathi was complaini...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-08-1972
Reported in : 1974CriLJ60
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. By making false and fraudulent representations to some bankers to the effect that he was going to import hides and skins of commercial quality the petitioner succeeded in opening Letters of Credit in some banks and in inducing those bankers to remit foreign exchange equivalent to the highly inflated value of the goods mentioned in the invoices of the shippers. The Reserve Bank and the Government of India were defrauded to the tune of more than Rs. 34 Lakhs. With these allegations, the Special Police Establishment filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and others for offences (1) under Section 120-B read with Section 420, I. P. C., (2) under Section 23 read with Section 4 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and (3) under Section 132 of the Customs Act. The prosecution filed a memo before the learned Magistrate stating that in view of the magnitude of the amount involved in the cheating it would be in the interest of justice to have the case tried by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-09-1972
Reported in : 1972CriLJ1684
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1 This is an appeal filed by the State against the order, of the Court of the Additional First Class Magistrate, No. II. Madurai acquitting the three accused-respondents of the offence of contravening Sections 2 (i) (a) and (1). 7 (i) and 16 a) (a) (i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with clause A in Appendix B to Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules2. Briefly the facts are: P. W. 1 is a Municipal Sanitary Inspector cum Food Inspector. On 11-9-1969, at 11 A.M. he along with his maistry went for taking samples of food articles. They found the Ice Cream push cart before No. 1. Bhagavan Chetti Lane when they proceeded along the workshop road. The push cart Ice Cream belongs to the Ice Cream Company. 60 Munichalai Road. P. W. 1 enquired the 3rd accused who was the salesman. The 3rd accused represented that he was taking the ice cream for sale. P. W. 1 thereafter purchased 600 grams of ice cream sold by the 3rd accused; P. W. 1 paid Rupees 4....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-21-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ732
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1.The respondent is a partner in M/s. T.S. Baba Sahib and Co. dealers in foodgrains at Polur, a village in the North Arcot District. On 13.6.1968, the District Supply Officer of this district, inspected his company and detected that he had 37 bags of ragi. These bags belonged to Sriramulu Chettiar, the respondent, who was a partner in this firm. He had no licence under the Madras Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964. He contended that he was under the bona fide impression that no separate licence was necessary for dealing in ragi. Observing that he had violated Clauses 3(1) and (2) of the Madras Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order 1964, the Collector, acting under Section 6A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Confiscated the 37 bags to Government. The respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge. North Arcot and he. by his order in Crl. M.P. No. 126 of 1969, set aside the confiscation after administering a warning to him. The correctness of this ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-24-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ358
K.N. Mudaliyar, J.1. This is an appeal filed by one S. Chinnaswamy, the accused-appellant, against the order of the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras convicting the accused for an offence under Section 65 of the City Police Act. I extract here below the substance of the accusation filed by the Sub Inspector of Police. On the basis of the said accusation, the charge is supposed to have been read out to the accused. The averment in the charge-sheet is as follows:That on 27.10.1969 at about 4.45 hours at W.Q. III Wharf Harbour, the accused noted in the charge-sheet was found in possession of a cloth bundle containing about 5 litres of boiled rice which was suspected to be a stolen property or property fraudulently obtained from the Harbour.Hence the charge....The learned Magistrate questioned the accused under Section 241 Cr.P.C. He has recorded as follows:A (accused) admits the offence. (Original in Tamil transliterated 'Un-maidaan' - Ed.)The accused is f.g. (found guilty) and admonis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-09-1972
Reported in : (1974)2MLJ466
S. Ganesan, J.1. The appellants, four in number, have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of West Thanjavur Division under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The first appellant had been sentenced to imprisonment for life for offences Under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and the third appelland has been sentenced to death and imprisonment for life respectively Under Sections 302 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. It is unnecessary to refer to other convictions and sentences.2. A preliminary objection is raised by Sri N. T. Vanamamalai, appearing on behalf of the appellants that the entire trial is vitiated in so far as the first three appellants are concerned, as the learned Sessions Judge had admittedly not appointed a State Counsel to defend the said appellants. It is pointed out that under Rule 166 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1958, the Sessions Judge has an imperative duty to engage a pleader to defend an accused person in grave charges like...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-06-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ545
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The first petitioner was working as an Assistant Station Master at Moradabad, U.P. during the year 1969. The second petitioner is his father. The third petitioner is his sister's father-in-law. On 9.6.1969 he was on relief duty at Raja-Ka-Sahaspur. On that date a bundle of 25 E.F.T. (Excess fare ticket) books were received at that Station. The first petitioner abstracted two E.F.T. Books bearing Nos. 606251 to 606300 and 606301 to 606350 from that bundle and handed over the remaining books to the Station Master. Subsequently he, under a Second Class Privilege pass travelled from Sambhal Hatim Sarai Railway Station in U.P. to Rameswaram on 16.1.1970. On 22.1.1970 a party of seven persons inclusive of A. 2 and A. 3 boarded in the First Class compartment in Rameshwaram Express on the strength of six E.F.Ts. Nos. 606316 to 606321 to Macharria. These tickets, as stated, were forged as Blank Paper Tickets for Rs. 209-50. On 23.1.1970 this party boarded a First Class C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-1972
Reported in : [1973]87ITR253(Mad)
Somasundaram, J. 1. On the 19th of November, 1970, the inspector of police attached to the P.I.B., C.I.D., Madras, stopped the bus No. MDJ. 4300 near Guindy and arrested one A. K. Ramu on suspicion under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He seized from him Rs. 1,12,000 (currency notes). Ramu, who was sent to court, was remanded to custody. Later, he was released on bail by the court on November 21, 1970. The amount seized was not sent to court. But, on the same day, it was taken away from the police station by the Assistant Director of Inspections (Income-tax Intelligence), under the authority of a warrant issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Mohanlal, the present petitioner, filed an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate for the return of this amount. Observing that the matter does not fall within the purview of Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate dismissed his application. The corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-07-1972
Reported in : 1973CriLJ293
ORDERSomasundaram, J.1. The petitioner's car MDO 6861 was seized by the Central Excise Department at Madras on the 22nd of February, 1971 Diamonds : Jewellery and Ornaments Worth Rs. 1,46,888/- were found in this car. The Collector of Central Excise has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking him to state as to why the car should not be confiscated Adjudication proceedings are now pending before him. The petitioner applied to the Collector of Central Excise for the return of the car. The latter did not pass any orders on his application. With these allegations the petitioner has filed this application requesting this Court to direct the Collector of Central Excise to release the car to him. The Collector in his counter contends that adjudication proceedings are now pending before him, that no criminal proceedings as such have commenced, that the matter is not before any criminal Court and that as such the petitioner cannot invoke Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code...
Tag this Judgment!