SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1927 Supreme(Mad) 136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
In Re: Sengodai Vannan
Versus
Unknown
Decided On : 3 March, 1927

Important Points

The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to try charges on a British ship, based on the applicability of specific legal provisions.

Subject

Criminal Law - Jurisdiction and Venue

Headnote

Jurisdiction - British Ship - Jurisdiction of Lower Court under Section 1 of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96 - Applicability to India by Section 1 of 23 and 24 Vic. c. 88 as well as by Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murdering two persons and causing hurt to several others on a British ship. Jurisdiction of the Lower Court to try the charge was questioned.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Lower Court had jurisdiction based on the applicability of Section 1 of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96 to India and Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Lower Court to try the charge on a British ship.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the applicability of specific legal provisions, namely Section 1 of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96, Section 1 of 23 and 24 Vic. c. 88, and Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which conferred jurisdiction to the Lower Court.

Final Decision: The Court confirmed the conviction and sentence, but directed that the evidence and judgment be brought to the notice of His Excellency the Governor in Council for possible reduction of the sentence.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant has been convicted of murdering two persons and causing hurt to several others. The offences were committed on the B.I.S. N.Co.s ship "Teesta" on his journey from Penang to Negapatam. The appellant is a British subject and the S. S. "Teesta" is a British ship. A question was raised as to the jurisdiction of the Lower Court to try the charge. A similar question was raised in King-Emperor v. The Chief Officer of S. S. "Musktari" (1901) ILR 25 B 336 where it was held that the Court in British India had, in a similar case, jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is conferred by Section 1 of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96, which has been made applicable to India by Section 1 of 23 and 24 Vic. c. 88 as well as by Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Following that decision, we hold that the Lower Court had jurisdiction.

2. On the merits there can be no doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offences of which he has been convicted. A plea of temporary insanity has been raised with reference to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. The one thing that is clear is that, at the time, the appellant was suffering from fever, but his temperature was only about 100 degrees and it has not been proved that he was delirious. We cannot therefore accept this plea. At the same time it is possible that the appellants acts were due to an attack of homicidal mania, though, as remarked in Queen-Empress Venkatasami (1889) ILR 12 M 459, we cannot say that the evidence warrants a finding that they were. We must confirm the conviction and sentence, but direct that the evidence and this judgment be brought to the notice of His Excellency the Governor in Council in order that he may, if he thinks fit, reduce the sentence.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top