Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Pukot Kotu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR19Mad349
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentPukot Kotu and ors.
Excerpt:
abkari act - act i of 1886 (madras), sections 31, 36--penal code, sections 99, 147 and 353. - .....by the right of private defence (for we can conceive of no other justification), but the magistrate has overlooked the provisions of the first and second clauses of section 99 of the penal code, which do not allow of the exercise of that right when an act such as this is done by a public servant or under the direction of a public servant which the sub-inspector was.3. we must therefore reverse the district magistrate's order of acquittal and direct that the appeal be restored to the file and heard and disposed of upon its merits. ordered accordingly.
Judgment:

1. The District Magistrate appears to have had no ground for his finding that the Sub-Inspector acted irregularly in making the search. But assuming the Magistrate's finding had been correct, the irregularity would have afforded no justification for the defendants' acts.

2. When the Magistrate states that the defendants were 'justified' in their resistance, we presume he means by the right of private defence (for we can conceive of no other justification), but the Magistrate has overlooked the provisions of the first and second clauses of Section 99 of the Penal Code, which do not allow of the exercise of that right when an act such as this is done by a public servant or under the direction of a public servant which the Sub-Inspector was.

3. We must therefore reverse the District Magistrate's order of acquittal and direct that the appeal be restored to the file and heard and disposed of upon its merits. Ordered accordingly.


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