Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-20-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Mad729; (1953)IIMLJ61
..... by the application of the special procedure laid down in the act and afforded no help in determining what cases required speedier trial.' at page 128, after pointing out the rationale of the impugned ordinance, fazl ali j. observed : 'i am satisfied that this case is distinguishable from the case relating to the west bengal act, but i also feel that .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-20-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Mad936
orderramaswami, j.1. this is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the conviction and sentence of the learned sub-magistrate of tiruenendur in c. c. no. 447 of 1951 and confirmed by the sub-divisional magistrate of tuticorin in c. a. no. 14 of 1952.2. the facts are : the petitioners who are father and son, are running a grocery shop in udangudi, a major panchayat. p. w. 1, shanmugham, assistant inspector of labour, made a surprise inspection of this shop under the shops and establishments act on the night of 5-2-1951 (monday and a shandy day) at 10-30 p. m. according to his watch and at 9-20 p. m. according to the timepiece in the shop. this p. w. i wanted to note the time of inspection in the register kept for that purpose. the accused objected and wanted this p. w. 1 to record the time as 9-30 p. m. as well as per the time-piece in the shop. there was a dispute and according to p. w. 1 accused 1 pushed him by the chest and accused 3 snatched away the register from his hand in addition to having abused. this created a scene and a crowd gathered. inasmuch as it had become late, p. w. 1 sent next day telegrams to his superior officers and despatched a report to the sub-inspector, kulasekharapatnan. the police charge-sheeted both the accused. p. w. 1 is corroborated by his peon p. w. 2 and practically by the peon of the udangudi panchayat board office, p. w. 3. p. w. 4 is the sub-inspector who received the telegram and complaint and investigated the case. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-09-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Mad801
balakrishna ayyar j. 1. the station house officer, pulivendla, filed a charge sheet against seven persons for offences under sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 i. p. c. and section 4(1), madras prohibition act. the stationary sub-magistrate, pulivandla before whom the charge-sheet was laid, held an enquiry under' chapter 18, criminal p.c., and, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 209 of that code, discharged accused 1 to 3 in respect of the offence under section 302, i. p. c. this is what he said, '............taking any view of the matter it isimpossible for any judge to find that a-1 to a-3 had a common intention to kill the deceased. so under those circumstances i feel compelled to discharge the accused for the offence of murder or culpable homicidenot amounting to murder with which they stand charge-sheeted. they shall however be charged for various other offences the evidence disclosed and shall be tried before me. proceedings shall therefore be converted into one under chapter 21 of the criminal procedure code.' the assistant public prosecutor, grade ii, cuddappah, moved the district magistrate in revision and he after hearing the assistant public prosecutor and the advocate for the accused passed the following' order: 'in the result the order discharging accused 1 to 3 is reversed and the sub-magistrate is directed to commit the accused 1 to 7 to take their trial before the sessions court, cuddappah.' the accused thereupon moved this court torevise the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-23-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad690
1. these three appeals involve a common question of law and arise out of applications under article 226 of the constitution for the issue of writs of certiorari or for appropriate writs to quash the orders made by the government under section 13 of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1949, exempting certain buildings from the provisions of the said act on the ground that the said section is inconsistent with article 14 and therefore void under article 13 of the constitution.2. section 13 of the madras buildings (lease and rent control) act, which will hereinafter be referred to as the act, runs thus:"notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the state government may, by notification in the port st. george gazette, exempt any building or class of buildings from all or any of the provisions of this act."this act is the latest of the series of acts and orders successively passed for the regulation ot the lease of buildings and for control of rent in the state of madras. the legislation dates back to the period of the second world war when a state of emergency prevailed and there was an acute shortage of accommodation.the preamble to the present act, which is the same as the preamble to the previous acts and orders, is as follows:"whereas it is expedient to regulate the letting of residential and non-residential buildings and to control the rents of such buildings and to prevent unreasonable eviction of tenants therefrom in the state :"the act deals broadly .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Apr-17-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad51; (1953)2MLJ325
1. the question that arises for decision in these petitions is the validity of the tanjore tenants and pannaiyal (protection) ordinance 4 of 1952 which was modified by ordinances 5 and 6 of 1952 and ultimately replaced by act 14 of 1952.the petitioners are mirasdars or land owners in the district of tanjore and these are applications by them under article 226 of the constitution for writs of certiorari to quash various orders passed by the revenue divisional officer acting under the provisions of the ordinance and act aforesaid. w. p. no. 859 of 1952 and 78 of 1953 are against orders passed under section 6 of the act directing the reinstatement of tenants; w. p. no. 875 of 1952 in against refusal to pass an order in ejectment under section 10 of the act; w. p. no. 788 of 1952 is against an order awarding compensation under section 12(4) of the act; and w. p. nos. 880 of 1952 and 6 of 1953 are against orders adjudicating disputes between landlords and tenants under section 13 of the act.apart from disputing the correctness of the orders on their merits, the petitioners raise the contention that some at least pf the provisions of the act are repugnant to articles 19(1)(f), 31(2) and 14 of the constitution and therefore, void under article 13. we heard in the first instance arguments of counsel on the constitutional issue relating to the validity of the legislation, reserving considerations of the other questions for a further hearing and we now proceed to express our opinion .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-02-1953
Reported in : AIR1953Mad917; (1953)2MLJ189
1. on 1-1-1952 a consignment of illicit opium was despatched by train from new delhi to madras and from madras on to chidambaram. acting on some information that he had received, mr. khadir hussain, an assistant inspector of excise who was also a deputy prohibition officer, shadowed the article to chidambaram. on 5-1-1952 one paramasivam went to the railway parcel office at chidambaram, tendered the way bill to the general parcel clerk and after signing in the delivery book took delivery of the parcel. at that stage mr. khadir hussain detained him and questioned him. he also seized the parcel which, on examination, was found to contain 33 seers of opium.2. on these allegations paramasivam and three others were prosecuted before the sub-magistrate, chidambaram. at the trial mr. khadir hussain gave evidence for the prosecution. when he was in the box the assistant public. prosecutor asked him what paramasivam had told him when questioned by the witness after his arrest. to that question the defence counsel took exception on the ground that section 162, cr. p. c. prohibited such statements from being given in evidence for the prosecution. ' the learned magistrate upheld the objection. on that, the prosecution came upon in revision to this court. somasundaram j. who first heard the matter considered that an authoritative decision was necessary on the point that had been raised and so referred the following question to a bench :"the question that is raised in this petition is .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-21-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad279; (1953)2MLJ25
orderramaswami, j. 1. this is a criminal revision case which has been filed against the order of compensation made by the stationary sub magistrate of perambalur in c. c. no. 1224 of 1951 and confirmed in c. a. no. 6 of 1952 by the additional first class magistrate of tiruchirapalli. 2. the facts are: natesa udayar, the petitioner before us, of melamathur filed a complaint against kanakasabai udayar and four others alleging that on 23-9-1051 at about 10 a.m., he was assaulted by the accused when he went with the process server of the ariyalur district munsif's court to serve summons on the accused. the complaint was taken on file under section 355, i. p. c., against accused 1 and 5 and under section 323, i. p. c., against accused 2. 3 and 4. in support of his case this natesa udayar examined himself and three others, viz., p. ws. 2 and 3, eyewitnesses, and p. w. 4, the process server. the case for the accused persons was that on account of enmity arising out of civil suit and in which the process was issued, they have been falsely implicated and that they did not commit the offence. the sub magistrate holding that a 'prima facie' case had been made out, framed a charge under 8. 355, i. p. c., against accused 1 and 5 and under section 323, i. p. c., against accused 2, 3 and 4. the accused pleaded not guilty and further cross-examined the p. ws. i need not point out that there were lengthy intervals oftime between the date of complaint, examination of p. ws. in the first .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-05-1953
Reported in : AIR1954Mad741
orderramaswami, j. 1. this criminal revision case has been filed against the order of discharge made by the learned sub-divisional magistrate of cheyyar in c. c. no. 493 of 1951 and which was refused to be interfered with by the district magistrate of vellore in c. r. p. no. 5 of 1952.2. the facts are: c. c. no. 1647 of 1951 was filed before the sub-magistrate, polur, for offences under sections 324 and 323, penal code, by ayesha bee, wife of kasim saheb, chinnapushpagirt village, polur taluk, against peerkhan sahib, pathima bee and chote bee, all residing in chinnapushpagiri village, polur taluk. it is unnecessary for us to go into the details of that case. so far as the present case is concerned, what happened was this. on this ayesha bee, the complainant, being examined as a prosecution witness, the accused who were defended by mr. v. m. sundaresa aiyar, advocate, vellore put questions to this witness containing 'per se' defamatory imputations to the following effects viz.,(a) that the complainant was in criminal and illicit sexual intimacy with one azia khan husband of accused '2 in that case;. (b) that the complainant was taken to velloreand kept there by the said aziz khan in pursuance of such intimacy; (c) that the complainant bore two children to the said aziz khan; and (d) that the complainant was living in illicit sexual intimacy with the said aziz khan for the past ten years and upto the date of the abovesaid questioning. 3. on the other hand, it is the case for .....Tag this Judgment!