Back
1927 Supreme(Mad) 207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Jackson
In Re: Srinivasulu Naicken
Versus
Unknown
Decided On : 25 March, 1927
The court emphasized that one section does not necessarily embrace the other, and discussed the reduction of sentences under Section 325, I.P.C. and the embrace of Section 352.
Headnote:
Section 325, I.P.C. - Reduction of Sentences - Embracement of Sections - Court discusses the reduction of sentences under Section 325, I.P.C. and the embrace of Section 352. It also addresses the issue of coupling Section 352 with Section 147 and emphasizes that one section does not necessarily embrace the other.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed three points: reduction of sentences under Section 325, I.P.C., the charge against accused 6, and the coupling of Section 352 with Section 147.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sentences should be reduced accordingly, acquitted accused 6, and dismissed the petition except for the indicated reductions in sentences.
Issues: Reduction of sentences, charge against accused 6, coupling of Section 352 with Section 147.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the reduction of sentences, the illegality of the charge against accused 6, and the coupling of Section 352 with Section 147, emphasizing that one section does not necessarily embrace the other.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed except for the indicated reductions in sentences.
Jackson, J.
1. Three points are raised: (1) That having eliminated Section 325, I.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge should hove reduced the sentences accordingly. The Public Prosecutor concedes that the three years under Section 325 should give place to two years under Section 352. as set forth in para, 11 of the Assistant Sessions Judges judgment as regards accused 1.
2. As regards the other accused 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 12 now that they are acquitted under Section 325 their culpability seems to be less and their sentence is reduced to nine months rigorous imprisonment; and that of the 13th accused to one year and nine months and fine.
(2) The charge against accused 6 that he was a member of this unlawful assembly on 30th October is an illegality vitiating the whole trial. It is a question of fact, not of law. The trial Court found that the charge was unsubstantiated and acquitted him. If the facts as charged had been proved there would have been no illegality.
(3) It is urged that Section 352, cannot be coupled with Section 147, because the latter necessarily embraces the former.
3. Persons may riot without actually committing an offence under Section 352 and this theory that one section embraces the other is fallacious.
4. The petition is dismissed except as indicated above.
