Skip to content


Chendrasekhara Dalai and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1904)14MLJ491
AppellantChendrasekhara Dalai and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredBejoy Singha Neogi and Ors. v. Empress
Excerpt:
- - in these circumstances when the agent of the zemindar, attended by a body of men stated to be about twenty, came to the village for the express purpose of ousting him by inducing the tenants to break their engagements with him and to make them go over to the zemindars and execute muchilikas and pay rents to them thereafter those agents were clearly acting ille-gally......his brother, the second accused. it was but the latter accompanied by one servant, that met the zemindar's agent's party and insisted upon their leaving the village and desisting from inciting the tenants to break their contracts with the first accused. what the second accused appears from the evidence to have done on the occasion is that he spoke to the zemindar's agent in an excited manner which, under the circumstances, was not altogether surprising. the utmost that the witnesses could say against him was that while speaking he twisted his moustaches, stamping the ground with the walking stick or umbrella he had with him. it seems to me that this could afford no ground for binding him to keep the peace and much less for binding the first accused, assuming even that the second.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The order of the Head Assistant Magistrate shows beyond doubt that, at the time referred to therein, the village was in the possession of the first; accused as the grantee thereof from the Zemindars and that the ryots of the village had previously attorned to and been paying rents to him having executed muchi-likas in his favour. In these circumstances when the agent of the Zemindar, attended by a body of men stated to be about twenty, came to the village for the express purpose of ousting him by inducing the tenants to break their engagements with him and to make them go over to the Zemindars and execute muchilikas and pay rents to them thereafter those agents were clearly acting ille-gally. The first defendant was certainly entitled to object to such trespasses being committed by them and to protest against their improper proceedings so long as in doing so he committed nothing unlawful. Admittedly the first accused himself was not at the scene with reference to which the order for security to keep the peace has been passed against the first accused and his brother, the second accused. It was but the latter accompanied by one servant, that met the Zemindar's agent's party and insisted upon their leaving the village and desisting from inciting the tenants to break their contracts with the first accused. What the second accused appears from the evidence to have done on the occasion is that he spoke to the Zemindar's agent in an excited manner which, under the circumstances, was not altogether surprising. The utmost that the witnesses could say against him was that while speaking he twisted his moustaches, stamping the ground with the walking stick or umbrella he had with him. It seems to me that this could afford no ground for binding him to keep the peace and much less for binding the first accused, assuming even that the second accused's protests were made with the first accused's knowledge and at his instance as to which, however, there is no evidence.

2. Following the decisions in Bejoy Singha Neogi and Ors. v. Empress 3 C.W.N. p. 463 and Kali Prasanna Bhadari and two others v. Empress Ibid (Notes of cases) p. coxcix. cited for the first and second accused, I set aside the order of the lower Courts and order the bonds taken from them to be cancelled.


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