Skip to content


Kolathukara Vaiyapuri Goundan Vs. Kuppuswami Goundan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1948)1MLJ330
AppellantKolathukara Vaiyapuri Goundan
RespondentKuppuswami Goundan
Excerpt:
- - no doubt there is the first explanation to section 425, but in my opinion it does not apply to a case like this.orderyahya ali, j.1. the petitioner has been convicted under section 427 of the indian penal code, and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 30. there was a piece of land which was unoccupied and both the complainant, p.w. 6, and the petitioner were trying to obtain it under an assignment but in the meantime each was using it in his own way occasionally. ten days prior to the occurrence p.w. 6 sowed some cholam and very tender crops sprouted. the cattle belonging to the petitioner is said to have been driven into that land and the result was that the tender crop was destroyed. the question is whether this amounts to an offence under section 427 of the indian penal code. it is necessary to constitute an offence under section 427 of the indian penal code that there should have been an intention to.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Yahya Ali, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. There was a piece of land which was unoccupied and both the complainant, P.W. 6, and the petitioner were trying to obtain it under an assignment but in the meantime each was using it in his own way occasionally. Ten days prior to the occurrence P.W. 6 sowed some cholam and very tender crops sprouted. The cattle belonging to the petitioner is said to have been driven into that land and the result was that the tender crop was destroyed. The question is whether this amounts to an offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code. It is necessary to constitute an offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code that there should have been an intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. There might have been an intention to cause loss to the village munsiff, P.W. 6, by allowing the cattle to enter and graze on the land when there was a crop on it. But the question is whether the intention was to cause wrongful loss, as defined in Section 23 of the Indian Penal Code. ' Wrongful loss ' is defined as loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

2. Here it is quite clear that the village munsiff, P.W. 6, was not legally entitled either to the land or to the crop standing on it as he had no permission to cultivate the land or to raise any crop thereon. No doubt there is the first explanation to Section 425, but in my opinion it does not apply to a case like this. The petition is allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine if paid will be refunded.


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