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

1927 Supreme(Mad) 311

WALLACE
In Re: Vanu Ramachandriah – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


ORDER

Wallace, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 116. His contention is that on the facts found the offence has not been established.

2. The facts found are that on 15th November, 1925, he, a Municipal Councillor of the Wallajapet Municipal Council, did, in a letter written to the complainant, who was the manager of the office of the same Municipality, say to him, "The matter regarding the lock-up shed, Mr. Manicka Seshayya is keen about it. Will you just try that job for him? I now here take my full privelege to you to say that he makes an offer of rupees two hundred to you in case he gets it. I shall stand surety for it if you can interfere in the matter and have it settled. If you can assure me, he is prepared to deposit the amount". The giving of a contract for this lock-up shed lay with the Chairman and the Councillors. I have no doubt what this letter means. The petitioner informs the manager that if he uses his influence with the Chairman and Councillors to secure the contract for Manicka Seshayya, he will get Rs. 200 from Manicka Seshayya or, if not from him, then from himself, the petitioner. Tha






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