Privy Council Cases
Colonial & appellate judgments
Browse Privy Council & House of Lords decisions
Search appeals from Indian High Courts decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and related appellate benches - foundational authority for constitutional and commercial law.
Colonial & appellate
Results · Chennai
The Queen Vs. Kadar Khan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad380
1. Kadar Khan was a witness for the defence of one Shaik Hyder, then on his trial for rioting, and, on the conclusion of the trial, was required by the Magistrate to give security to keep the peace for a year, the reasons given by the presiding Magistrate for this order being that the evidence given by Kadar Khan in the trial left no doubt on his mind but that he was one of the rioters in the case then being tried, and that it was probable he might at some future time encourage a breach of the peace.2. The Sessions Judge, however, points out that Kadar Khan's evidence in the trial as recorded contains nothing equivalent to an information that he was likely to commit a breach of the peace or to do any act calculated to occasion a breach of the peace; and, moreover, that, presuming any such information was contained therein, such evidence, which is the only evidence recorded at all in the proceedings, was not of the nature on which the Joint Magistrate was at liberty to adjudicate as req...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Revu Pothadu
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad390
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The accused have been convicted of theft under Section 3791, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to fines of various amounts, which have been paid. The act for which they were convicted consisted of catching fish in a creek at Lakshmipuram, the right to fish in which had been leased out by Government.2. Following the Proceedings of this Court, dated the 23rd October 18782, we set aside the conviction and direct that the fines levied from the accused be refunded.1 Punishment for theft.[Section 379: Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.]2 Proceedings of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, 23rd Oct., 1878, Nos. 1759, 7331:In these cases a number of persons have been convicted of stealing fish from certain Government tanks. The right of capturing the fish in the particular tanks in question had been sold by Government at auction to persons ot...
Tag this Judgment!Number Vs. Ambu and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad381
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The facts of this case are that on the 27th February last the first accused was charged under Section 24* of The Cattle Trespass Act, 1871, with having rescued a cow from the possession of the complainant, who was conveying it to a village pound to be impounded, and he was further charged, along with the second and [382] third defendants, with using criminal force to the complainant on the same occasion (Section 352, Indian Penal Code).2. The Sub-Magistrate convicted the first accused (first defendant) on both charges, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 5, commutable into five days' rigorous imprisonment, and also the complainant's costs, amounting to 12 annas. The second and third accused were acquitted under Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the complainant was ordered to pay to the third defendant Rs. 3 as compensation under Section 209 of the said Code.3. The District Magistrate submits that, with reference to High Court ruling o...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Varthappa Nayakan
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad382
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. We agree with the District Magistrate.2. The accused was found passing through the bamboo fence of the market at Ambur with a bundle of thread intended for sale. The Second-class Magistrate considered that he did so with intent to cause wrongful loss to the toll contractor by evading payment of the toll which he would have had to pay if he had entered by the gate where the contractor was waiting to levy it, and he convicted him (accused) of criminal trespass, and fined him Rs. 2.3. Evasion of tolls may be a wrong, but it is of itself no offence. There is no finding that the entry was made with any of the intents mentioned in Section 44l* of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and the sentence are set aside and the fine must be refunded.* Criminal trespass.[Section 441: Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property; or havi...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Venguvayyangar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad25
Innes, Officiating C.J., and Muttusami Ayyar, J.1. The accused, who is the Nattamgar (Headman) of a village, was tried under Section 4091, Indian Penal Code, for criminal breach of trust in respect of part of certain revenue collections which he was charged with embezzling. He was discharged under Section 215, Criminal Procedure Code, the reason given by the Joint Magistrate for such discharge being that he could not find the accused guilty on the gross sum in respect of which he was charged.2. If, however, the Magistrate found the charge established as to a portion of the amount, he should have convicted as to that portion.3. From his judgment it seems doubtful what he found as to the sums mentioned in exhibits A and N. His order of discharge should be set aside, and he should be directed to come to a finding as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner on these items. If he finds him guilty, he should pass sentence according to law.4. In connection with this case the District Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Arundadhi Ammyar and anr. Vs. Natesha Ayyar
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR5Mad391
1. A suit (183 of 1874) was instituted by first defendant against Lakshmi, her mother. The latter died pending the suit, and this plaintiff, who had been adopted by Lakshmi and her husband, was substituted as her representative.2. Lakshmi and her husband Samu Bhatta had five daughters, and Samu Bhatta had left a bequest of 8,000 rupees to be divided among them as their marriage portions. This sum had come, it was alleged, to the hands of Lakshmi, and she had neglected to pay the amount due to the first defendant in the present suit, who, as already stated, was the plaintiff in the Suit 183 of 1874. In special appeal in that suit it was decided that plaintiff, in his representative character, was liable to the extent of assets of Lakshmi that might have come to his hand.3. There was admittedly no property of Lakshmi in plaintiff's hands available for attachment, but the law provides in that case--Section 252, Civil Procedure Code--that execution may be issued against the judgment-debtor...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Velayudam Pillai
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad146
Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The question in this case is, whether the sanction of a Taluk Magistrate to a prosecution under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for a statement made to the Police and included in their referred charge sheet forwarded by them to such Magistrate under Section 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is sufficient, or whether the sanction for the prosecution should not have been given by an official in the Police Department.2. It does not appear to us that the Taluk Magistrate is the official superior of the Station-house Officer within the meaning of Section 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the order of acquittal is therefore right. We must decline to interfere....
Tag this Judgment!Thomas Arthur Taylor Vs. Virasami Chetti and anr.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad108
Kernan, J.1. The plaint states that plaintiff had since some time in 187S: sold shirting impressed with. a trade-mark, and that a particular distinguishing portion of the mark was a collection of figures of talwars,. or swords, which, on one class of his goods, amounted to five in number; that his goods acquired in the Madras market the name of 'Talwar shirtings' from the figures of talwars printed on them; and that defendant recently procured shirting imported by him to be impressed with the mark of five talwars, which mark, plaintiff alleges, would cause defendants' goods to bear, the same name in the market as the plaintiff's, and that defendants' mark Was calculated to deceive. Defendant denies that plaintiff's goods were known in the market as 'Talwar shirtings,' and denies that plaintiff has acquired any exclusive right to the use of the talwar device.2. The issue was, whether defendants had infringed plaintiff's trade-mark.. The general principles on which the Court gives relief...
Tag this Judgment!Virasami Nayudu Vs. Subba Rau and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1883)ILR6Mad54
1. The respondents in this suit are the dharmakartas of the patlisuraswami temple of Tirupapuliyur, and the temple committee having the superintendence of such temple, and the suit was brought to recover from the appellant the temple and certain moveable and immoveable property appertaining thereto, together of the value of Rs. 11,611-12-7, of which the appellant was said to be in wrongful possession the appellant having in January 1877 been properly dismissed by the temple committee from the office of dharmakarta of the said temple, to which he was originally appointed by the Collector in 1849.2. Appellant filed a written statement to the effect that the suit was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge; that respondents had no locus standi to maintain the suit; that the respondents professing to represent the temple committee under Act XX of 1863 did not really do so; that the temple came under Section 4 and not Section 3 of Act XX of 1863; that appellant had...
Tag this Judgment!The Queen Vs. Siddappa
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1882)ILR6Mad60
Innes, Officiating C.J., Muttusami Ayyar and Tarrant, JJ.1. The accused in this case has been tried under Section 19, Clause (f) of the Indian Arms Act XI of 1878, for possessions of a gun without a license. He was discharged under Section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the gun was unserviceable, the trigger being lost.2. The District Magistrate submits that the fact of trigger being lost is immaterial, as a gun without a trigger comes within the provision of Section 4 of the Arms Act, which lays down that the word ' arms ' includes inter alia 'parts of arms,' and that the discharge was therefore not warranted.3. It appears from the evidence taken in the case that the gun was quite unserviceable and unfit for use; in fact the District Magistrate finds that it is. not a firearm at all.4. A firearm in such a state as this, even though it might be repaired and rendered serviceable, is not, we think, one for which a license need be taken out. In including parts of ar...
Tag this Judgment!