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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 228

PANDRANG ROW
K. Srirangachariar – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


ORDER

Pandrang Row, J.

1. The petitioner was committed to the Chingleput Sessions Court to take his trial on two separate charges accusing him of two distinct offences, viz. the offence of theft of a blank 2nd class railway ticket from the South Indian Railway Companys booking office at Conjeeveram punishable under Section 380, I.P.C. and the offence of forgery in respect of certain entries alleged to have been made by him in that ticket with intent that fraud may be committed, punishable under Section 467, I.P.C.

2. The trial of the petitioner was proceeded with at first only in respect of the first offence, i.e., the offence of theft. This trial in respect of the offence of theft which was held by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chingleput, with the aid of a jury ended in acquittal. Thereupon the trial of the petitioner in respect of the second offence, the offences of forgery, was taken up by the Sessions Judge, Chingleput. The petitioner contended that his acquittal in the earlier trial was a bar to the subsequent trial. This contention was repelled by the Sections Judge in a reasoned order dated 20th December 1933.

3. The present revision petition attacks the correctness of this ord

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