Skip to content


The Crown Prosecutor Vs. A. Duraiswami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1923Mad364; (1923)44MLJ201
AppellantThe Crown Prosecutor
RespondentA. Duraiswami
Excerpt:
- - and the latter part of the rule clearly applies to the person who allows himself to be so carried, for he rides the bicycle but not on the saddle......single person riding a bicycle in the manner the 2nd accused did. he pleaded guilty and therefore he should have been convicted but as the crown prosecutor does not ask for a sentence it is not necessary to inflict one now. but his acquittal is set.....
Judgment:

Krishnan, J.

1. The interpretation put by the Honorary Magistrates on the rule referred to by them and published in the Fort. St. George Gazette of 10th February, 1922 No. 189 seems to be erroneous. The first part of the rule applies to the person who pedals the bicycle and takes with him another on the same cycle; and the latter part of the rule clearly applies to the person who allows himself to be so carried, for he rides the bicycle but not on the saddle. The word 'ride' docs not necessarily imply that the person riding should propel the bicycle himself. It may be that the rule as worded covers the case of a single person riding a bicycle in the manner the 2nd accused did. He pleaded guilty and therefore he should have been convicted but as the Crown Prosecutor does not ask for a sentence it is not necessary to inflict one now. But his acquittal is set aside.


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