Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1953Mad516; (1953)IMLJ290
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. This is a criminal revision case filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned Sub-Divisional First Class Magistrate of Peddapur in C. A. No. 53 of 1951 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Additional Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Rajahmundry in C.C. No. 343 of 1930.2. The facts are :-- The complainant has purchased Musurumilli Bamboo Coupe No. 1 for the year 1949-50, i.e., for the year ending 30-6-1950 for Rs. 5000/- in auction held by the Forest Department and was working the Coupe through the men engaged by him. He was getting the stock of bamboos from the Coupe to Gokavaram and stocking them in the site of one Dasari Bulliah. This site was held under a lease of the accused from whom the complainant has taken it on an annual rent of Rs. 35/- for the purpose of securing the bamboos therein. The complainant noticed that the stock in the depot was being diminished, having been misappropriated by the accused and so he asked his agent at Gokavaram to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. The accused in C.C.No.58/2004 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur seeks quashing of the order dated 31.08.2006 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore remanding back the said calendar case to the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur. 2. According to Mr. S. Baskaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, once the trial court referred the case under section 325 CrPC to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore for imposing severe sentence, again the Chief Judicial Magistrate cannot remand back the case to the referral Magistrate. In support of his proposition, Mr. Baskaran cited In re Sundalamada Kudumban [AIR (29) 1942 Madras 281 (2)]. Thus, he would submit that the impugned order dated 31.08.2006 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is required to be quashed. 3. Mrs. MF. Shabana, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that even the Chief Judicial Magistrate to whom the case was sent, has to deal with the case in accordance with the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1986(23)ELT363(Mad)
1. All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J., in Criminal Appeal No. 688 to 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy, J., inAssistant Collector of Central Excise, Vellore Division, Vellore v. R. Padmanabhan (judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 808 of 1976 dated 20th December, 1979), on the question whether the officer of the customs department would be an agency empowered to made investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such as officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable.2. Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated.3. Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 1976. - This appeal arises out of the judgment made in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1983CriLJ1880
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. All the above appeals are listed before us in pursuance of the reference made by Maheswaran, J. in Crl. Appeal No. 688 of 1976, disagreeing with the view expressed by Suryamurthy J., in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Ellore Division Vellore, V. R. Padmanabhan (Judgment of this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 808 of 1976, dated 20-12-1979), Reported in 1980 ELT 631 (Mad) on the question whether the officer of the Customs Department would be an agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under the provisions of the Customs Act, within the meaning of Section 377(2) of the Cr.P.C., and whether an appeal preferred at the instance of such an officer on the ground of the inadequacy of the sentence awarded, is maintainable. 2. Before adverting to the important legal question raised before us, the brief facts of these four appeals, in which the same question of law is involved, may be stated. C.A. 688 of 1976 :- 3. This appeal raises out of the judgment made...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 9Ind.Cas.567a
ORDERAyling, J.1. The petitioner, undoubtedly, committed an offence under Section 21(f) of the Forest Act by quarrying in a reserved forest without a permit; but under the peculiar circumstances of the case, little more than a nominal sentence was called for, for the petitioner quarried the stone for use in construction of a Chavadi for which he had taken a contract from the minor Irrigation Overseer and it is clear from the latter's evidence (as defence witness No. 1) that whatever the petitioner did was with his knowledge and support. He says he has been accustomed to allow his contractors to quarry without obtaining permits and to deduct the seignior-age due to the Forest department from the contractor's final bills. This he seems to have regarded as quite proper and legal. It is a dangerous system and likely to lead to abuse, but there is no reason to hold that the petitioner was actuated by any dishonest or bad motive.2. The conviction is upheld, but the fine is reduced to Rupees ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1958)2MLJ308
ORDERRamaswami, J.1. These are Revision Cases which have been filed against the convictions and sentences by the learned Eighth Presidency Magistrate, G.T., Madras, in C.C. Nos. 13680 and 13747 of 1956.2. The facts are: The complaints in these cases have been filed by the Drugs Inspector, Madras City against Messrs. Indian Process Chemical Laboratory, 283, Linghi Chetty Street, Madras 1, the proprietrix of the said firm Srimati Krishna Bhamini Devi and the Manager of the said firm Sri V.S. Krishnamurthy.3. The charge is that this firm has been stocking and exhibiting for sale and distributing drugs manufactured by their principal firm at Bangalore, Indian Process Chemical Laboratory. Tincture Digitalis, B. P. was one of the drugs so stocked and distributed. Samples of the Tincture Digitalis were taken by the Drugs Inspector, Madras and sent for analysis to the Government Analyst, Guindy, and were found to be sub-standard quality. The accused are thus said to have violated the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1956)1MLJ481
Ramaswami, J.1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Madras against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sub-Magistrate of Tiruvannamalai in C.C. No. 662 of 1954.2. The facts are: In Tindivanam Road in Tiruvannamalai there is a hotel by name ' Modern Cafe '. The proprietor of this hotel is Narayanaswami Reddiar and the head-cook who is in charge of the supply of meals at the hotel is C.S. Harihara Ayyar. On 30th November, 1953, the Sanitary Inspector of Tiruvannamalai, Sri N. Ramachandra Rao, took samples of ghee prepared for sale along with the meals and sent the same to the analyst. The Government Analyst has found that there was an admixture of adulterated fat of 78 percent. Therefore, a prosecution was launched against the proprietor and the head-cook who pleaded guilty was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 20 and the proprietor who pleaded 'not guilty' was acquitted on the ground that he was not present at the hotel that day. This appeal has been filed on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ781
ORDER1. In this case we are asked to review the order of the Joint Magistrate of Nandyal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on petitioners by the Sub-Magistrate of Kalwa for an offence under Section 448, Indian Penal Code (house trespass).2. The facts of the case are simple. Complainant and his wife who were sleeping in their house, the door of which was open, awoke in the dead of night and discovered that some persons were inside the building. An alarm was raised and these persons were subsequently found to be petitioners. A dagger, which does not belong to the inmates and which, it is inferred, was brought by the petitioners, was found in a corner of the house. 1st petitioner was not on good terms with complainant, and had, on the previous afternoon, taken part in getting his house searched for forest produce. Petitioners did not set up any innocent motive for their presence in the house under the circumstances deposed to by the prosecution witnessess, but attempted to sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1914)ILR37Mad280; 25Ind.Cas.1008
ORDERNapier, J.1. The accused in this case was charged with an offence under Section 26 of Act V of 1882. This offence is compound-able under Section 55 of the Act. It is Admitted that the accused has paid Rs. 2 by way of compensation to the village monegar for the Forest Authorities.2. Section 53 provides that on such payment no farther proceedings shall be taken against such person. This section must mean that proceedings in progress must lapse. That being so, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict the accused. I set aside the conviction and order the fine to be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2754
ORDER1. This writ petition by a RAJYA SABHA MEMBER and Secretary of the Tamil Nadu State Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), filed as a public interest litigation, is against respondents 1 and 2, who are State of Tamil Nadu, represented by two different Secretaries, 3rd respondent, who is the District Forest Offcer, Harur Division, Dharmapuri District, 4th respondent, who is Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District and the 5th respondent, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harur. It prays for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to hold an enquiry into the happenings, commencing from 20-6-1992 and the consequent suffering undergone by the Villagers of Vachathi, a small Tribal Village in the abovesaid Harur Taluk. It also prays that upon considering the abovesaid enquiry report, for taking appropriate penal action against the delinquent personnel and for compensating the victims. It also prays for an enquiry being held on the wider question of smuggling ...
Tag this Judgment!