Skip to content

In Re: Mahomed Yakoob - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Decided On
Reported in6Ind.Cas.12a
AppellantIn Re: Mahomed Yakoob
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Dalip
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 332 - resisting public servant in the discharge of his duty--non-specification of the particular duty--assaulting constable employed to watch the accused--offence. - .....i make the alteration accordingly. i am not asked to interfere with the sentence imposed by the sessions.....

Miller, J.

1. The Sessions Judge has misapprehended the effect of the case, Queen-Empress v. Dalip 18 A. 246, to which he seems to refer. In that case the constable sent exceeded his authority and so could not be said to be in the execution of his duty, but the learned Judges nowhere suggest that the duty must be a particular duty imposed expressly by the law on the particular occasion. Here, in the view of the evidence taken by the Magistrate from which the Sessions Judge is not prepared to differ, the constable was employed to watch the accused. That was undoubtedly his duty at the time of the offence, and it is found that the accused knew it. The constable was not doing any thing in excess of his authority, when he was assaulted. The conviction under Section 332 should have been confirmed and I make the alteration accordingly. I am not asked to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge.

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