High CourtsSingle Bench(1972) 01 MAD CK 0004

In Re: Murugesan

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 January 1972 · Citation: (1972) LW(Cri) 145

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.N. Mudaliar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 1970

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

10 paragraphs · 345 words

K.N. Mudaliar, J.—This appeal is directed against the conviction of the Appellant for offences u/s 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act and

S. 325 Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months. No separate

sentence was awarded against him for the offence u/s 4(i)(j). The Appellant was on bail and when he was examined u/s 251-A (ii), Criminal

Procedure Code, he admitted having committed both the offences. The learned trial Magistrate has followed the procedure by framing a charge under Sub-section (iii) of S. 251-A and the Appellant pleaded guilty to the charges framed by the trial Magistrate for offences u/s 325. I. P. C. and

S. 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act, Undoubtedly, the framing of the two charges is vitiated by illegality, namely, misjoinder of parties. The

offence u/s 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act is a distinct offence. The injury inflicted by the Appellant on Arumugham is quite a distract act of

the Appellant. S. 235(1) Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates ""one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction "". I

am unable to see how the consumption of liquor by the Appellant-an offence u/s 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act-can be so connected with the offence of assaulting Arumugham as to form the same transaction. In my view, they do not constitute the same transaction. Therefore, the offence u/s 4(i)(j) is quashed following the reasoning found in the judgment reported in Chacko v. State of Kerala (1). Regarding the conviction of the Appellant for the offence u/s 325, I. P. C., his plea of guilt admits of no interference.

2.

Inasmuch as it is pleaded that the Appellant is a first offender, the sentence is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

Save for the modification in the sentence and for the acquittal of the Appellant for the offence u/s 4(i)(j) of the Madras Prohibition Act, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The fine imposed on him is also set aside.