Skip to content


Periaswamy Alias Ma Iraivan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1970)2MLJ442
AppellantPeriaswamy Alias Ma Iraivan
Excerpt:
- .....was filed against the petitioner for offences under sections 451, 353 and 355 of the indian penal code. the trial court convicted him for all the three offences and sentenced him to pay a fine of rs. 100 under each count. on appeal, the district magistrate held that no offence under section 355 of the indian penal code, was made out. however, he confirmed the conviction and the sentence passed under sections 451 and 353 indian penal code. the correctness of this order is now canvassed in this revision.2. the evidence adduced establishes that there was only a wordy altercation between the two. the petitioner is said to have said that he would leave the place only after shoeing the former. there is no evidence to show that there was any gesture no as to bring the matter within the.....
Judgment:

B.S. Somasundaram, J.

1. Solomon Rajayya, P. W. 1 was the Tahasildar at Aranthangi. On the 20th October, 1968, the revision petitioner went to his house and questioned him about the re-instatement of a Village Headman. There was a wordy altercation between the two. The latter suggested that the former was not doing it, because he had received some illegal gratification. The Tahsildar said that if that was the case he might lay a complaint before the vigilance officers. The petitioner then said that he would leave the place only after shoeing him. P. Ws. 2 and 3 who were then present pacified him. This is all what happened on that day. The Tahsildar gave a complaint. Charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner for offences under sections 451, 353 and 355 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him for all the three offences and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under each count. On appeal, the District Magistrate held that no offence under Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code, was made out. However, he confirmed the conviction and the sentence passed under sections 451 and 353 Indian Penal Code. The correctness of this order is now canvassed in this revision.

2. The evidence adduced establishes that there was only a wordy altercation between the two. The petitioner is said to have said that he would leave the place only after shoeing the former. There is no evidence to show that there was any gesture no as to bring the matter within the ambit of Section 355, Indian Penal Code. The lower appellate Court has correctly acquitted him for this offence. When this is so, there can be no conviction for the offence under Section 353, Indian Penal Code also, because, the finding is that no force was used by the petitioner. Only on that basis he has acquitted him for the offence under Section 355, Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 451 also, (house trespass), there should be an entry in order to commit any offence which is punishable with imprisonment. Now that it is found that the petitioner has not committed any offence, it follows that there can be no conviction under Section 451, Indian Penal Code also. The revision is allowed. The convictions and sentences passed against him are set aside. The fine if collected shall be refunded.


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