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

1947 MarsdenLR 261

TAYLOR
MUTHUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR – Respondent


Advocates:
WH Salt for the Appellant.
JNC Kilner (Crown Counsel) for the Respondent.

JUDGMENTBY: TAYLOR, J

In this case the accused, who is a lorry driver, was charged with house trespass with the intent to intimidate the occupant, and also with assault, under section 352, Penal Code.

The case for the Crown was that the accused went to the complainants house and protested against the alleged participation of the complainants son in writing a petition against certain persons, including the accused; after some argument the complainant asked the accused to leave his house but he did not go and threatened to hit the complainant. The accused also made as though to strike another person with a torch but the blow was averted.

Now it should have been clear from the charges and the opening statement of the prosecuting officer that no blood had been shed and that the offence, if any, was not serious. But all concerned, including I fear the learned Magistrate, partly lost their sense of proportion and instead of sticking to essentials and ending the case in an hour or two they allowed it to grow into a local cause celebre, the record of which extends to thirty pages.

I am well aware of the difficulties which attend cases of this kind, of the litigiousness of certain cla

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