Skip to content


The Queen Vs. Yellamandu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad157
AppellantThe Queen
RespondentYellamandu
Excerpt:
indian penal code, section 290 - nuisance--punishment. - innes and muttusami ayyar, jj.1. the accused in this case was convicted under section 290, indian penal code, and sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment, to undergo a brief term of rigorous imprisonment.2. the fine was paid, but the district magistrate submits that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine is of questionable legality, the offence of nuisance being punishable with fine only.3. the imprisonment allowed by law mentioned in clause 3 of section 309, criminal procedure code, would, in the present case, be imprisonment under section 290 of the indian penal code, and the imprisonment awardable under that section of the penal code is not restricted to simple imprisonment. we think, therefore, that the award of rigorous imprisonment was not.....
Judgment:

Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

1. The accused in this case was convicted under Section 290, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine, and in default of payment, to undergo a brief term of rigorous imprisonment.

2. The fine was paid, but the District Magistrate submits that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine is of questionable legality, the offence of nuisance being punishable with fine only.

3. The imprisonment allowed by law mentioned in Clause 3 of Section 309, Criminal Procedure Code, would, in the present case, be imprisonment under Section 290 of the Indian Penal Code, and the imprisonment awardable under that section of the Penal Code is not restricted to simple imprisonment. We think, therefore, that the award of rigorous imprisonment was not illegal.


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