Skip to content


In Re: Thommeni Nadar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1974CriLJ1116
AppellantIn Re: Thommeni Nadar and ors.
Excerpt:
.....involved in a criminal case, merely because he is acquitted later, at least insofar as matters of public employment are concerned. therefore, the challenge to the impugned rule on the ground of infringement of articles. 14 and 16 of the constitution must fail - section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explantion (1); appointment - state police service - disqualification of a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case - validity? held, by virtue of explanation 1 to clause (iv) of rule 14(b) of the t.n. special police subordinate service rules, a person acquitted on benefit of doubt or discharged in a criminal case, can still be considered as disqualified for selection to the police service of the state and that..........for the petitioners is that the ingredient of section 159 of the indian penal code, namely, 'public place' has not been proved by the prosecution in the light of the contents of ex. d-3 relied on by the b party. the learned additional district judge has elaborately discussed the entire evidence adduced on the question, whether the pathway was a public pathway or not, and arrived at the finding that the a party (who were plaintiffs in the civil suit) could have no right in the pathway as an easement of necessity; nor could they have any right over the said portion even on the basis of user of the pathway by them, on some occasions. the learned judge further found that the portion in question was a private pathway and not a public pathway.3. the criminal court is not charged with the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. Thommeni Nadar and 24 others were B party before the learned trial Magistrate and Pandy and 21 others were A party. They were convicted of an offence under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The principal argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the ingredient of Section 159 of the Indian Penal Code, namely, 'public place' has not been proved by the prosecution in the light of the contents of Ex. D-3 relied on by the B party. The learned Additional District Judge has elaborately discussed the entire evidence adduced on the question, whether the pathway was a public pathway or not, and arrived at the finding that the A party (who were plaintiffs in the civil suit) could have no right in the pathway as an easement of necessity; nor could they have any right over the said portion even on the basis of user of the pathway by them, on some occasions. The learned Judge further found that the portion in question was a private pathway and not a public pathway.

3. The criminal Court is not charged with the task of evaluating the comparative claims of the parties as to the public user of the site in question. Its finding must be distinct and clear that the scene of occurrence is a public place. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge embodied in Ex. D-3 would at least create a doubt that the scene of offence was a public place. In this view, I am constrained to hold that the ingredient of 'public place' has not been made out. I, therefore, give the benefit of doubt to the petitioners in Cr.P.C. Nos. 274 of 1972 and 165 of 1973 and acquit all the petitioners of the offence punishable under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The fines, if paid, shall be refunded to the petitioners.


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