Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1928)54MLJ456
Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.1. The petitioner in this Criminal Revision Case was convicted by the First Class Sub-divisional Magistrate of Vellore for the offence of kidnapping a girl from lawful guardianship under Section 363, Indian Penal Code. In this petition I am not concerned with the 2nd accused who has been acquitted, on appeal, by the Sessions Judge. In the appeal which was preferred by both the accused the learned Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction of the petitioner reduced the sentence with regard to him to rigorous imprisonment for one year instead of two years. Mr. V.L. Ethiraj, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, took only two points before me. His first contention was that the facts of the case indicated an offence under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session. He therefore contended that the conviction of the accused by the First Class Magistrate for the smaller offence under Section 363 was illegal and should be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1962CriLJ166
ORDERVeeraswami, J.1. This revision is directed against the order Of the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai dismissing the appeal against the conviction of the petitioners of an offence under Section 7 read with Section 18 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.This being a third offence of the kind committed by the first petitioner, Madurai City Co-operative Milk Supply Union, it was sentenced to any a fine of Rs. 3000, the minimum prescribed by the proviso to Sub-section (1)(a)(iii) of Section 18, The second petitioner, who was the secretary of the first petitioner, was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 30. Both the courts below have found that the sample of cow's milk boiled and cooled, purchased from the first petitioner, through its salesman Uthaman, on the morning of 2-2.2.1959 from the quantity in a sealed can, and meant for the Maternity home, maintained by the municipality, was adulterated with added water of 11 per cent.The Public Analyst for Madurai Municipality certified...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1982CriLJ1362
ORDER1. First accused for an offence under Section 495 I.P.C. and accused 2 to 7 for an offence under Section 495 read with Section 109 I.P.C. faced trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate I, Madurai. The learned Magistrate acquitted accused 5 to 7 and convicted accused 1 to 4 as charged and sentenced them to six months rigorous imprisonment. Against the conviction and sentence, accused 1 to 4 filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Madurai in Crl. A.P. 13 of 1979, The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The present petition is by accused 1 to 4 against the conviction and sentence confirmed by the lower appellate court. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows : Accused 1 and 4 are the sons of accused 2 and 3. The complainant, P.W. 1, was living with her maternal uncle, P.W. 2. Accused 2 to 4 negotiated marriage alliance for the first accused and P.W. 1 and negotiatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1964Mad185; 1964CriLJ519
ORDERKailasam, J.1. This petition is filed under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code to call for the warrant issued in S. T. 336 of 1960 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, which was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras, for execution and for return of the same to the Court of issue. The petitioner alleged that he was convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Kerala Sales Tax Act for default of payment of sales tax by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The arrears of sales tax due, a sum of Rs. 6000/- was also directed to be collected as fine. A warrant was issued by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, addressed to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Madras for the purpose of endorsing the warrant under the provisions of Section 387 Criminal Procedure Code and for execution. The warrant was endorsed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate and forwarded to the Commission...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995(1)CTC300
ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This petition is under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the First information Report No. 210/91 pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.2. According to the petitioner, who is the accused, as the complaint given by the respondent complainant before Virugambakkam Police had been already referred to and a notice also was sent to the complainant, he cannot file another complaint before the Inspector of Police, CB. C.I.D., who has registered the case in A.F.I.R. No. 210/91 for investigation and the second investigation is not permissible under law.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.A. Selvam, would submit that the respondent herein filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee on 2.3.90 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, forwarded the complaint to the Virugambakkam Police under Section 156 Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation but after investigation as the Virugambakkam Pol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals have been preferred to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 24.09.2014 made in S.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Puducherry, by allowing these appeals.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A.No.644 of 2014 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A.No.580 of 2014 is the second accused in S.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry. They are sisters. The first accused stood charged for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 382 IPC and the second accused stood charged for offence under Section 201 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 24.09.2014, the Trial Court convicted the first accused and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3414
ORDER1. This revision is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Mudurai in C.A. No. 147/88 confirming the order of conviction passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sivaganga, in SC No. 96/82 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, four years and Rs. 1,500 (except for first accused) and one month respectively for the offences under Ss. 148, 326 and 326 read with S. 149, IPC. For the offence under S. 147, IPC also against some of the accused, one year rigorous imprisonment is imposed. The first accused has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under S. 326, IPC. Even though the second accused was convicted under S. 326, IPC for three counts, the learned Sessions Judge convicted him only for two counts. 2. P.W. 1, is a resident in Madhavarayanpatti Village whereas the accused are the residents of Iyyapatti the adjacent Village. There was previous enmity be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : [1977]40STC310(Mad)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The assessees are manufacturers and dealers in service station equipments such as air compressors, car washers, hydraulic lifts, etc. For the assessment year 1964-65, they reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 30,73,594.69 and Rs. 9,42,804 38, respectively. The assessing officer determined the total and taxable turnover at Rs. 32,36,332.19 and Rs. 9,53,424.38 respectively. The assessees had used motors and pistons in the manufacture of air compressors and car washers. These motors and pistons were purchased by them issuing form XVII to the sellers and paying the concessional rate of sales tax. The taxable turnover determined by the assessing authority included the sales of air compressors and car washers in which they had used these motors and pistons, which they have purchased after issuing form XVII. With respect to these air compressors and car washers, the assessees claimed that they were not used with electrical energy and that they were interchangeable w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1949)2MLJ44
ORDERGovinda Menon, J.1. The petitioner Major F.K. Mistry who was an Ordinance Officer in charge of the Returned Stores Depot, Almadi, Avadi Sub-Area, along with two others was prosecuted firstly for having conspired to remove and continually misappropriate, tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and secondly in pursuance to that conspiracy for having with his two associates managed, in their capacity as officers belonging to the Ordinance Department in the Indian Army, to remove quantities of tentage from the Returned Stores Depot; and in compensation for which act, the petitioner was paid Rs. 800 out of the sale proceeds of these articles on or about the 31st August, 1946. The charge-sheet was filed on the 24th July, 1947, alleging that the offences were committed on 28th August, 1946, and the petitioner received his share of the proceeds of misappropriation on the 31st August, 1946. Fourteen witnesses were examined for the prosecution and thereafter charges were framed on the 1st o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1918Mad481; 40Ind.Cas.291
ORDER1. In this case the first point for consideration is whether the charge under Section 409 of the Penal Code against the accused Venkataranga Josiar can be proceeded with inasmuch as he had been previously tried by a Magistrate with second class powers upon the same facts for an offence under Section 406 of the Penal Code and acquitted.2. We think Section 403, Sub-section 4, Criminal Procedure Code, applies; it states that, if a person has either been acquitted or convicted of an offence but the same facts disclose an offence which could not be tried by the first Magistrate, then the previous acquittal or conviction is no bar to further proceedings for a more serious offence. The words of the Sub-section are 'A person acquitted or convicted of any offence constituted by any acts may, notwithstanding such acquittal or conviction, be subsequently charged with, and tried for any other offence constituted by the same acts which he may have committed if the Court by which he was first t...
Tag this Judgment!