PIPIREDDIGARI GOPALA REDDI AND ANR. Vs. N. LAKSHMI REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question in this criminal revision case is whether the petitioners were rightly convioied of offences under Section 341 of the Penal Code. The facts as found are these. The petitioners apparently objected to P.W. 1 driving a cart along a path which passed in front of their house. On the day on which the offence is said to have been committed, P.W. 1 was seen by the accused to pass at about 11 a.m. and then when he returned at about 12 -30 p.m. they stopped the cart and unyoked the bulls. P.W. 1 who was sitting on the shaft fell down when the bulls were unyoked. The bulls ran away and P.W. 1 proceeded on his way on foot. Accepting the evidence the learned Magistrate convicted the accused of offences under Section 341, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them each to pay a fine of Rs. 50.

(2.) THE argument advanced by Mr. V.C. Gopalaratnam for the petitioners is that there was no wrongful restraint within the meaning of Section 339, Indian Penal Code, because, although the cart was stopped, P.W. 1 was left free to proceed on his way on foot. The restraint, in short, it is argued, was of the vehicle and not of the person as required by Section 339, Indian Penal Code. The argument no doubt receives support from decisions of the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts vide Emperor v. : (1912)15BOMLR103 and Durga Pada Chatterjee v. : AIR1927Mad506 . These decisions, however, have not been followed in a series of decisions by single Judges of this Court (vide In re Peria Ponnuswami Goundan : AIR1927Mad506 , Md. Tusuf Sahib, In re : (1938)2MLJ583 , and Muthu Padayachi v. Emperor, (1934) M.W.N. 620. In the case first cited Jackson, J., stated in his order: