Skip to content


In Re: T. Venkataraya Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Misc. Petn. No. 2291 of 1949
Judge
Reported inAIR1950Mad440
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 40
AppellantIn Re: T. Venkataraya Chetti
Appellant AdvocateV. Rajagopalachari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAssistant Public Prosecutor
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - i, therefore, set aside the order confiscating the jaggery and its proceeds, and direct the proceeds of the jaggery also (like the tamarind) to be paid over to the petitioner......i am of opinion that the congestion of the jaggery, which belonged to this petitioner, for the offence committed by the lorry driver whom he had engaged to transport it and who transported it at night time against the rules was not justified, as contended by mr. y. rajagopalachari, advocate for the petitioner, since it was not proved that the offence of transporting the jaggery during the night was committed by the lorry driver with the knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence of the petitioner. there is a presumption of innocence under the law, and no man shall suffer in person or property normally unless he is proved to have had the necessary mens rea. mere suspicion of knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence will not do even for confiscation. nor will the act of a.....
Judgment:

Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.

1. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the congestion of the jaggery, which belonged to this petitioner, for the offence committed by the lorry driver whom he had engaged to transport it and who transported it at night time against the rules was not justified, as contended by Mr. Y. Rajagopalachari, advocate for the petitioner, since it was not proved that the offence of transporting the jaggery during the night was committed by the lorry driver with the knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence of the petitioner. There is a presumption of innocence under the law, and no man shall suffer in person or property normally unless he is proved to have had the necessary mens rea. Mere suspicion of knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence will not do even for confiscation. Nor will the act of a servant or agent or carrier do. Suppose a carrier of a gun of another was convicted under Section 19, Arms Act, the gun should not normally be confiscated unless, of course, the offence has been committed with the knowledge or connivance or criminal negligence of the owner. So too here. I, therefore, set aside the order confiscating the jaggery and its proceeds, and direct the proceeds of the jaggery also (like the tamarind) to be paid over to the petitioner.


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