Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Rama Lala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 372 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1912)15BOMLR103; 19Ind.Cas.177
AppellantEmperor
RespondentRama Lala
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....section 339, the obstruction should be so complete and successful as (sic) to prevent the person obstructed from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. the wrong being a wrong against the person is not completed where the person is at liberty to go in any direction he pleases. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or..........district magistrate, mr. sedgwick, the conviction was upheld. the learned district magistrate, however, finds as a fact that the person said to have been obstructed was still able to proceed across the passage in question. that being so, we do not think that he can be said to have been wrongfully restrained, seeing that the definition under section 339 requires that the obstruction should be so complete and successful as to prevent the person obstructed from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. the wrong here defined is a wrong against the person, and is not completed where the person is at liberty to go in any direction he pleases. that is the case here (sic) facts found by the magistrate, and it appears to the (sic) material that the person, though himself.....
Judgment:

Batchelor, J.

1. In this case the accused has been convicted of wrongful restraint under Section 339, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine. On appeal to the Additional District Magistrate, Mr. Sedgwick, the conviction was upheld. The learned District Magistrate, however, finds as a fact that the person said to have been obstructed was still able to proceed across the passage in question. That being so, we do not think that he can be said to have been wrongfully restrained, seeing that the definition under Section 339 requires that the obstruction should be so complete and successful as to prevent the person obstructed from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. The wrong here defined is a wrong against the person, and is not completed where the person is at liberty to go in any direction he pleases. That is the case here (sic) facts found by the Magistrate, and it appears to the (sic) material that the person, though himself unobstructed, (sic) hindered from driving a bullock-cart through the passage. W(sic) must, therefore, make the rule absolute, set aside the conv(sic)tion and sentence and direct that the fine, if paid, be refun(sic) to the accused.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //