Skip to content


Karuppiah Kone Vs. Chitran Servai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1939)2MLJ404
AppellantKaruppiah Kone
RespondentChitran Servai and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....accused being also convicted under section 353, indian penal code.2. on appeal by the accused the joint magistrate of ramnad without going into the merits of the case ordered a retrial, presumably after reversing the convictions and sentences on the ground that the offence disclosed against accused 2 and 3 was not merely an offence under section 353, indian penal code, which was within the cognisance of the taluq magistrate but an offence under 5. 352 which is not within his cognisance i am unable to say after going through the evidence that the view of the joint magistrate is wrong though it must not be understood that i concur in his opinion that the taluq magistrate acted without jurisdiction. i concur in his view that the facts disclose the voluntary causing of hurt to p.w. 1, a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The complainant in the case is the petitioner before me. He is a process-server and the case for the prosecution was that he and another person, namely, P.W. 2 in the case, were beaten and that they received injuries when the complainant was about to effect the arrest of the first accused in pursuance of a warrant. There appear to have been two complaints, one by the process-server and another by P.W. 2 and they were both inquired into at the same time by the Taluq Magistrate of Sivaganga who convicted the three accused under Sections 225, 323, Indian Penal Code, two of the three accused being also convicted under Section 353, Indian Penal Code.

2. On appeal by the accused the Joint Magistrate of Ramnad without going into the merits of the case ordered a retrial, presumably after reversing the convictions and sentences on the ground that the offence disclosed against accused 2 and 3 was not merely an offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code, which was within the cognisance of the Taluq Magistrate but an offence under 5. 352 which is not within his cognisance I am unable to say after going through the evidence that the view of the Joint Magistrate is wrong though it must not be understood that I concur in his opinion that the Taluq Magistrate acted without jurisdiction. I concur in his view that the facts disclose the voluntary causing of hurt to P.W. 1, a process-server while he was discharging his duty as a public servant. The Medical certificate obtained by the process-server shows that he had five abrasions and one contusion on the back. There are sufficient prima facie evidence of the causing of hurt and the circumstances do not suggest th8at the hurt was caused otherwise than voluntarily. In these circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Joint Magistrate. The petition is therefore dismissed.


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