Skip to content


Kailappa Goundan and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928Mad651
AppellantKailappa Goundan and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredParamasiva Pillai v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....by the court of session, and a 2nd class magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. the appellate magistrate does not find that the document was fabricated. what he finds is that the complainant was coerced into putting the thumb impression to a document. as the defence relied upon this document as a genuine document the learned magistrate considered the question whether the thumb-impression was obtained in the ordinary course, or whether the complainant was coerced into putting her thumb-impression. the charge is not one of fabricating false evidence. therefore, there is nothing in this point.3. one other point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the lower appellate court quashed the conviction in respect of two counts and its not interfering with the conviction and.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an application to revise the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Namakkal confirming the conviction of the petitioners under several sections of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The first point urged is that the lower appellate Court finds that a document was fabricated, and if that be so the case would be one exclusively triable by the Court of Session, and a 2nd Class Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case. The appellate Magistrate does not find that the document was fabricated. What he finds is that the complainant was coerced into putting the thumb impression to a document. As the defence relied upon this document as a genuine document the learned Magistrate considered the question whether the thumb-impression was obtained in the ordinary course, or whether the complainant was coerced into putting her thumb-impression. The charge is not one of fabricating false evidence. Therefore, there is nothing in this point.

3. One other point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the lower appellate Court quashed the conviction in respect of two counts and its not interfering with the conviction and sentence in respect of the third count amounts to an enhancement of the sentence and, therefore, the sentence should be reduced. In support of this contention Mr. Ethiraj relies upon Paramasiva Pillai v. Emperor [1907] 30 Mad 48. That case has no application to the present case. In this case there were three counts and the lower appellate Court thought that there was no distinct charge in respect of the separate counts and set aside the conviction in respect of two and declined to interfere with the sentence in respect of the third. This does not amount to an enhancement of the sentence.

4. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed.


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