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

1924 Supreme(Mad) 830

In Re: Yerlagadda Venkanna – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


ORDER

1. The petitioner has been convicted of having committed offences under Section 188 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 55 (b) of the Abkari Act.

2. The facts found were that he was discovered by a Police Officer on 20th March, 1924 selling arrack in his shop during a festival day at Mangalagiri at 6-10 P. M., 7-30 P. M and 10-30 P. M., the former sales being in contravention of an order promulgated by the District Collector, and the latter sale being in contravention of the terms of his license. The conviction under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, was for the former sales and that under Section 55 (b) of the Abkari Act for the latter.

3. It is contended for the petitioner first that Section 188, Indian Penal Code, will not apply to such a case : and we think this is so. There is here no question or proof of causing or tending to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury to any one, and it does not follow, as the Lower Courts seem to think, as a matter of course, that selling drinks will lead to riots or disturbance. We are of opinion that the conviction under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, will not stand.

4. The next point raised is that the conviction under Section 55 of the





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