Skip to content


In Re: K.R. Kalyanarama Ayyar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subjectcriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1942Mad199
AppellantIn Re: K.R. Kalyanarama Ayyar
Excerpt:
.....of a punishment and the denial of promotion did not amount to double jeopardy, and (ii) that the conviction by a criminal court and the disciplinary proceedings initiated either on the basis of conduct which let to the conviction or on pure questions of misconduct, did not amount to double jeopardy. since the concept of acquittal is an acquittal, is an off shoot of the principle of double jeopardy underlying section 300(1) of the code, it cannot be imported into service law, where the principle of double jeopardy itself is looked down upon. therefore, the explanation 1 to rule 14(b) of the impugned rules, treating a person acquitted on benefit of doubt, as a person involved in a criminal case, is only in tune with well settled principles applicable to service jurisprudence. a person..........of fact are sufficient to sustain the conviction. it is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's speech must be considered as a whole and that he could not be convicted unless the whole speech were found to be a 'prejudicial act.' i see no good reason for supposing that a particular portion of a speech cannot constitute a 'prejudicial act.' there is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction. learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the sentence of fine should be remitted or largely reduced since the petitioner is not a wealthy man. as the learned sessions judge has already reduced the sentence of imprisonment from eight months to three, maintaining the fine, i am not prepared to reduce the sentence further.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Burn, J.

1. The findings of fact are sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's speech must be considered as a whole and that he could not be convicted unless the whole speech were found to be a 'prejudicial act.' I see no good reason for supposing that a particular portion of a speech cannot constitute a 'prejudicial act.' There is therefore no ground for interference with the conviction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the sentence of fine should be remitted or largely reduced since the petitioner is not a wealthy man. As the learned Sessions Judge has already reduced the sentence of imprisonment from eight months to three, maintaining the fine, I am not prepared to reduce the sentence further by reducing the fine. The petition is accordingly dismissed.


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