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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 376

HORWILL
Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
Captain R. Rajagopalan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The accused entered into a contract with the District Forest Officer of the Nilgiris to convey quantities of sandalwood from the Seigur Range in the Nilgiris District to Satyamangalam in the Coimbatore District. For the purpose of fulfilling his contract, he used his registered private lorry and on one of his trips to Coimbatore, the lorry was stopped within that district by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Annui, and when the driver was asked for the "G" permit, it was found that he had none; and he and the owner were therefore charged by the Coimbatore Police Under Section 16, Motor Vehicles Act, The owner was convicted by the Sub-Magistrate of Mettupalayam. In appeal the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Coimbatore held that the car was actually let for hire within the Nilgiris District and that therefore the Courts of Coimbatore District had no jurisdiction to try the offence, the Sub-divisional Magistrate holding that Under Rule 30(a), the motor vehicle is prohibited from being let for hire without a "G" permit and as the accusers lorry was let for hire in the Nilgiris he could not be tried at Coimbatore. He therefore allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

2

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