Skip to content


The King-emperor Vs. A. Duraiswami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1923)ILR46Bom476
AppellantThe King-emperor
RespondentA. Duraiswami
Excerpt:
.....section 78 - rules dated 10th february 1922, and published in the fort st. george gazette--two persons riding a cycle, one seated on the, saddle, the other standing on the back-steps of the same--whether guilty. - code of civil procedure, 1908. order 37, rule 2: [f.i. rebello, smt v.k. tahilramani & a.s. oka, jj] maintainability of summary suit held, a written contract or a contract in writing need not always be a contract signed by both the parties and may consist of exchange of correspondence of a letter or letters written by one and assented to by the promisor without signature or even of a memorandum or printed document not signed by either party. a written contract therefore, need not be evidenced in a single document, written by the parties since the written document can be by..........gazette of 28th march 1922, notification no. 81 seems to be erroneous. the first part of the rule applies to the person who pedals the bicycle and takes with him another on the same cycle; and the latter part of the rule clearly applies to the person who allows himself to be so carried, for he rides the bicycle but not on the saddle. the word 'ride' does not necessarily imply that the person riding should propel the bicycle himself. it may be that the rule as worded covers the case of a single person riding a bicycle without being seated on the saddle but it certainly covers also the case of a person riding a bicycle in the manner the second accused did. he pleaded guilty and therefore he should have been convicted, but as the crown prosecutor does not ask for a sentence it is not.....
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. The interpretation put by the Honorary Magistrates on the rule referred to by them and published in the Fort St. George Gazette of 28th March 1922, Notification No. 81 seems to be erroneous. The first part of the rule applies to the person who pedals the bicycle and takes with him another on the same cycle; and the latter part of the rule clearly applies to the person who allows himself to be so carried, for he rides the bicycle but not on the saddle. The word 'ride' does not necessarily imply that the person riding should propel the bicycle himself. It may be that the rule as worded covers the case of a single person riding a bicycle without being seated on the saddle but it certainly covers also the case of a person riding a bicycle in the manner the second accused did. He pleaded guilty and therefore he should have been convicted, but as the Crown Prosecutor does not ask for a sentence it is not necessary to inflict one now. But his acquittal is set aside.


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