SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1938 Supreme(Mad) 170

PANDRANG ROW


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The petitioner was convicted of being in possession of a wireless receiving set without a licence under Sections 3 and 6 of Act XVII of 1933 and also of working the same without a licence under Section 20 of Act XIII of 1885 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60 under the Wireless Telegraphy Act and a fine of Rs. 75 under the Indian Telegraphs Act in respect of the same wireless receiving set. These fines were reduced on appeal by the Sessions Judge to Rs. 20 and Rs. 25 respectively; it will thus be seen that even in the appellate Court the separate sentences were retained. It is, to say the least, extremely doubtful whether the use of a wireless receiving set without a licence would amount to an offence under Section 20 of the Indian Telegraphs Act which in view of Section 4 of that Act could not have been intended to include wireless receiving sets used ordinarily to receive broadcast programmes. In my opinion there is no justification for a separate conviction under Section 20 of the Indian Telegraphs Act or for a separate sentence under that section. The conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the Indian Telegraphs Act are therefore set aside.

2. I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top