High CourtsSingle Bench(1910) 03 MAD CK 0068

In Re: Mahomed Yakoob

Madras High Court · Decided on 11 March 1910 · Citation: 6 Ind. Cas. 12(1)

HON’BLE JUDGES
Miller, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 162 words

Miller, J.—The Sessions Judge has misapprehended the effect of the case, Queen-Empress v. Dalip 18 A. 246, to which he seems to refer. In that case the constable sent exceeded his authority and so could not be said to be in the execution of his duty, but the learned Judges nowhere suggest that the duty must be a particular duty imposed expressly by the law on the particular occasion. Here, in the view of the evidence taken by the Magistrate from which the Sessions Judge is not prepared to differ, the constable was employed to watch the accused. That was undoubtedly his duty at the time of the offence, and it is found that the accused knew it. The constable was not doing any thing in excess of his authority, when he was assaulted. The conviction u/s 332 should have been confirmed and I make the alteration accordingly. I am not asked to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge.