Skip to content


In Re: Arunachala Mudali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1941Mad99(2); (1940)2MLJ819
AppellantIn Re: Arunachala Mudali and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....obtained a licence from the district superintendent of police under section 30, clause (2) of the indian police act for taking a procession, and one of the conditions of the licence was that music of all description should be stopped within a distance of 50 yards on either side of any mosque. this condition was violated by petitioners 2 to 11 and the first petitioner the licensee would unquestionably be guilty under section 32 of the indian police act. the real question is whether the other petitioners would also be guilty under that section and as urged by the public prosecutor section 32 provides that every person violating the condition of any licence granted by the district superintendent of police for the use of music shall be liable to a fine. the person violating the condition.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The first petitioner obtained a licence from the District Superintendent of Police under Section 30, Clause (2) of the Indian Police Act for taking a procession, and one of the conditions of the licence was that music of all description should be stopped within a distance of 50 yards on either side of any mosque. This condition was violated by petitioners 2 to 11 and the first petitioner the licensee would unquestionably be guilty under Section 32 of the Indian Police Act. The real question is whether the other petitioners would also be guilty under that section and as urged by the Public Prosecutor Section 32 provides that every person violating the condition of any licence granted by the District Superintendent of Police for the use of music shall be liable to a fine. The person violating the condition need not be the licensee, and the finding is that petitioners 2 to 11 were aware of the conditions of the licence. They too would therefore be guilty under Section 32 of the Indian Police Act and there is no ground for interference with the conviction. But the fines are excessive and they are reduced to Rs. 100 in the case of the first petitioner and Rs. 25 each in the case of the others. Otherwise this petition is dismissed.


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