Skip to content


Muthusami Pillai Vs. Government Tahsildar of Ramnad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad434
AppellantMuthusami Pillai
RespondentGovernment Tahsildar of Ramnad
Excerpt:
- - i cannot see how the petitioner's failure to hand over records on his ceasing to hold office on 22nd june 1930 can be regarded as part of the same transaction as his forwarding to the district munsif, on 22nd july 1930 and 20th november 1930, copy applications in forwarding which he improperly described himself as headman and village munsif, even if he forwarded with the copy applications the records to which they related......contrary to the provisions of sections 233 and 235, criminal p.c. i think that the point is taken correctly. i cannot see how the petitioner's failure to hand over records on his ceasing to hold office on 22nd june 1930 can be regarded as part of the same transaction as his forwarding to the district munsif, on 22nd july 1930 and 20th november 1930, copy applications in forwarding which he improperly described himself as headman and village munsif, even if he forwarded with the copy applications the records to which they related. he still went on retaining other records till some time later, when they were taken from him. he did not retain the records on the pretext that he was still the village munsif. the petition is allowed and the conviction is set aside. no further inquiry is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bardswell, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted in the trial Court of offences punishable under Sections 170 and 175, I.P.C. On appeal the conviction under Section 175 was set aside on the ground that the complaint as to it was not made as prescribed in Section 195, Criminal P.C., but the conviction under Section 170 was upheld though with a large reduction of sentence.

2. The point is now taken on revision that the trial of the two offences together was illegal as being contrary to the provisions of Sections 233 and 235, Criminal P.C. I think that the point is taken correctly. I cannot see how the petitioner's failure to hand over records on his ceasing to hold office on 22nd June 1930 can be regarded as part of the same transaction as his forwarding to the District Munsif, on 22nd July 1930 and 20th November 1930, copy applications in forwarding which he improperly described himself as Headman and Village Munsif, even if he forwarded with the copy applications the records to which they related. He still went on retaining other records till some time later, when they were taken from him. He did not retain the records on the pretext that he was still the Village Munsif. The petition is allowed and the conviction is set aside. No further inquiry is necessary. Even if the petitioner committed an offence under Section 170, I.P.C., it was merely a technical one as the appellate Magistrate has found the petitioner acted rather through vanity than with any criminal intention.


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