Skip to content


The Queen Vs. Varthappa Nayakan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR5Mad382
AppellantThe Queen
RespondentVarthappa Nayakan
Excerpt:
penal code, section 441 - evasion of local fund market tolls no offence. - .....upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass.]
Judgment:

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 having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass.]


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