Q. What are the equivalent citations for In Re vs ?

The equivalence citation are1938 MWN 224 ; AIR 1938 MAD 390 ; LQ/MadHC/1937/377 ;

In Re Vs. On 25 November, 1937

Q: Q. What was the bench assigned for the case In Re vs ?

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE VENKARAMANA RAO

In Re
v.

(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)

Criminal Appeal No. 315 Of 1937 | 25-11-1937

Venkaramana Rao, J

[1] In this case, the case for the prosecution was that on 1st November 1936 accused 1 to 7 formed themselves into members of an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing injury to P.W. 3 and wrestling from his possession the goods which were suspected to be smuggled and forcibly removed from their possession. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted accused 3, 4, 6 and 7 but convicted accused 1, 2 and

5. All that was found against accused 1 and 2 was that they were found to be present at the scene of offence and that accused 5 ran away with the bundle which fell from the hands of P.W. 3 during the course of the scuffle with the assailants. There is no reliable evidence as to whether more that five took part in the attack against P.W. 3 and most of the witnesses who were called on the side of the prosecution have been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. He therefore acquitted four out of the seven persons charged with the offence of rioting. It seems to me that accused 1, 2 and 5 should also have been acquitted: see Ata Muhammad v. Emperor (1923) 10 AIR Lah 692, and the view taken in this case has been taken also in this High Court. There is also authority in England for this view: see Rex v. Plumber (1902) 2 KB 339. I therefore set aside the conviction of and the sentence passed on accused 1, 2 and 5 and direct them to be set at liberty. Their bail bonds are cancelled.

Advocates List

For the Appellants Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, Advocate. For the Crown A.S. Sivakaminathan, Advocate.

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKARAMANA RAO

Eq Citation

1938 MWN 224

AIR 1938 MAD 390

LQ/MadHC/1937/377

HeadNote

Criminal Appeal — Conviction — Setting aside — Accused 1, 2 and 5 were convicted for the offence of rioting under S. 147 IPC — No reliable evidence as to whether more than five took part in the attack against the complainant — Four out of the seven persons charged with the offence of rioting were acquitted — Held, accused 1, 2 and 5 should also have been acquitted — Conviction and sentence passed on accused 1, 2 and 5 set aside — Ata Muhammad v. Emperor, (1923) 10 AIR Lah 692, Rel. on.