Skip to content


In Re: Kuttiath Odayoth Veetil Komar Nambiar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad1071(1); 29Ind.Cas.672
AppellantIn Re: Kuttiath Odayoth Veetil Komar Nambiar and ors.
Excerpt:
.....jj] proceedings under section 17 power of the tribunal to pass any interim order held, once the possession of the secured asset is taken, there would be no occasion for the tribunal to order redelivery of possession till final determination of the issue. in other words, it is only when the tribunal comes to the conclusion that any of the measures, referred to in section 13 (4) taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of the act and the rules made thereunder, then only the tribunal can restore possession of such secured assets to the borrower. by virtue of sub-section (7) of section 17 of the securitisation act read with section 19 (12) of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act the tribunal undoubtedly possess ancillary power to.....orderspencer, j.1. the illustration (a) to section 378, indian penal code, shows that if a tree is cut with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of the possession of the person in possession, the offence of theft is complete as soon as the tree is severed in order to such taking.2. here the appellate court found that the accused cut the trees 'to annoy p.w. no. 1 and to get the better of him.' the conviction for theft is accordingly set aside. that for mischief will stand.3. the sentence is reduced to the amount of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the accused and to fines of rs. 10 each and in default of payment to three weeks rigorous imprisonment. the order to pay rs. 20 as compensation to complainant out of the fines, if collected, will stand.
Judgment:
ORDER

Spencer, J.

1. The illustration (a) to Section 378, Indian Penal Code, shows that if a tree is cut with the intention of dishonestly taking it out of the possession of the person in possession, the offence of theft is complete as soon as the tree is severed in order to such taking.

2. Here the Appellate Court found that the accused cut the trees 'to annoy P.W. No. 1 and to get the better of him.' The conviction for theft is accordingly set aside. That for mischief will stand.

3. The sentence is reduced to the amount of rigorous imprisonment already undergone by the accused and to fines of Rs. 10 each and in default of payment to three weeks rigorous imprisonment. The order to pay Rs. 20 as compensation to complainant out of the fines, if collected, will stand.


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