Skip to content


In Re: Nachiappa Udayan Alias Venga Udayan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1927)53MLJ528
AppellantIn Re: Nachiappa Udayan Alias Venga Udayan and ors.
Cases ReferredSee Samaruddi v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- - there appears to be evidence that the four petitioners cut a fence, which, without more, may well have constituted the 'force or violence' necessary, with other ingredients, to amount to rioting......is one of rioting and other offences, and it can hardly be doubted that in such circumstances a single trial and charge may comprehend many diverse acts committed over a considerable space of time, if there be ground to believe that they were the result of a common object. the objection to this court endeavouring, in the midst of such a trial, to ascertain whether or not the lower court is exercising its powers rightly in holding a single trial, seems to me to be so manifest as scarcely to need stating. i do not go so far as to say that in no circumstances can a high court interfere at such a stage in revision, but i think that the learned judges who respectively decided kuppuswami aiyar, in re : (1915)28mlj505 and ramanathan chettiar v. sivarama subramania aiyar : air1925mad39 , and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Curgenven, J.

1. The petitioner wishes this Court to intervene in the course of this part-heard case and say that the Trial Court is wrong in holding that all the acts imputed to the accused cannot (can?) be brought within a single transaction, as that term is used in Section 239 of the Code of Cri. Procedure. The case is one of rioting and other offences, and it can hardly be doubted that in such circumstances a single trial and charge may comprehend many diverse acts committed over a considerable space of time, if there be ground to believe that they were the result of a common object. The objection to this Court endeavouring, in the midst of such a trial, to ascertain whether or not the Lower Court is exercising its powers rightly in holding a single trial, seems to me to be so manifest as scarcely to need stating. I do not go so far as to say that in no circumstances can a High Court interfere at such a stage in revision, but I think that the learned Judges who respectively decided Kuppuswami Aiyar, In re : (1915)28MLJ505 and Ramanathan Chettiar v. Sivarama Subramania Aiyar : AIR1925Mad39 , and the former of whom says that such power should be exercised with great care, would agree with me that only upon allegations of the gravest departure from procedure should this Court take the conduct of a case of this description before its termination out of the hands of the Trial Court. On the materials which the petitioner has made available, I am wholly unable to satisfy myself that such an irregularity has been committed. There appears to be evidence that the four petitioners cut a fence, which, without more, may well have constituted the 'force or violence' necessary, with other ingredients, to amount to rioting. [See Samaruddi v. Emperor ILR (1912) C. 367]. As to this, of course, I can express no opinion. The only view I can take is that in the interests of justice it is necessary for the trial to terminate before these questions are investigated; and if substance is found in them the petitioners will have a sufficient remedy then. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.


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