Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Mahomed Hanif Sahib And Ors. vs Anagappa Mudali And Ors. on 7 March, 1916 cites

Sundram Chetti And Ors. And Ponnusami ... vs The Queen on 9 January, 1883

Great stress is laid on this, both in setting out the facts at the commencement of the judgment and in applying the previous rulings in Muthialu Chetty v. Bapun Sahib 2 M. 140 and Sundram Chetti v. Queen and Ponnusami Chetti v. Queen 6 M. 203 : 2 Weir 77. It is not necessary for us in the present connection to interpret the words of Section 296, Indian Penal Code. In disposing of a charge under that Section which might arise out of this dispute in future, the existence of a declaration such as has been prayed for is doubtless only one of several factors which might have to be considered in deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused. But we are clear that there is no conflict between such a declaration and the section quoted; and no reason why on this score the declaration should be refused.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

The Public Prosecutor vs Sunku Seethiah And Ors. on 22 March, 1910

6. The next objection is that both decrees are illegal in that they may be regarded as authorising an act, which is declared criminal by Section 296, Indian Penal Code. It is, of course, unnecessary to say that a declaratory decree of a Civil Court should not be treated as authorising an act which is per se a criminal offence. Appellants' Vakil argues, relying on Public Prosecutor v. Sunku Seethaiah 6 Ind. Cas. 774 : 7 M.L.T. 430 : 21 M.L.J. 71 : 11 Cr. L.J. 400 : 34 M. 92 that the word "voluntarily" in Section 296, Indian Penal Code, simply means knowingly" and that any disturbance of a religious assembly is always a criminal offence, if caused "voluntarily" in this sense of the word. In spite of one or two passages in the judgment, we take leave to doubt whether the learned Judges intended to lay down so broad a proposition. The facts of the case before them were very simple; the disturbance was made during hours which bad been notified by the District Magistrate to the knowledge of accused as those during which divine worship was carried on in the mosque.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1