Skip to content


Chinna Garata Reddi Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.416a
AppellantChinna Garata Reddi
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 379 - carrying away of crops of a tamarind tree--absence of finding as to possession of tree--right to crops also not determined--proof of sale of tree to the accused--dishonesty cannot, be imputed, to the accused. - ordermiller, j.1. the magistrates were wrong in not deciding whether the accused was or was not the owner of the produce of the tree. it is not even found whether the complainant had on had not a right to possession under his mortgage and in the absence of findings on either of those questions, it being proved that the tree had been sold to the accused, i do not see what ground the magistrates have on which to base a finding of the dishonesty in the accused. i set aside the 1st class magistrate's order confirming the conviction and sentence and direct him to re-hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.
Judgment:
ORDER

Miller, J.

1. The Magistrates were wrong in not deciding whether the accused was or was not the owner of the produce of the tree. It is not even found whether the complainant had on had not a right to possession under his mortgage and in the absence of findings on either of those questions, it being proved that the tree had been sold to the accused, I do not see what ground the Magistrates have on which to base a finding of the dishonesty in the accused. I set aside the 1st Class Magistrate's order confirming the conviction and sentence and direct him to re-hear the appeal and dispose of it according to law.


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