M ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition against the conviction of the petitioner under Section 341, Penal Code, by the Additional First Class Magistarte, Chingleput, and a fine of Rs. 50 imposed on him therefor.

(2.) The facts are briefly these. The petitioner was the first accused in C. C. No. 686 of 1947 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Chingleput. He was the driver of bus No. MDH 787- The prosecution case is that, on 27th September 1947, he purposely made his bus stand across the Thirukkalikundram Road, at Chingleput, near the Chowki post in such a manner as to prevent another bus, MDH 1167, which was coming from behind, to proceed further. When P. W. 1, the driver of MDH 1167 turned his bus to the right, to avoid and pass the petitioner's bus, the petitioner deliberately and intentionally drove his bus MDH 787 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against bus No. 1167, causing damage, and thereby committing an act endangering the life of the passengers who were travelling in that bus. The learned Magistrate found this petitioner guilty only under Section 341, Penal Code, for wrongfully restraining the driver and passengers of bus No. 1167, and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that the petitioner would not be guilty of "wrongful restraint" by preventing the progress of the other bus MDH 1167, by putting his bus across the road, because of the observations of the Bench ruling in Gurucharan Kaur v. Province of Madras, I. L. R. (1942) Mad. 696 : (A.I.R. (29) 1942 Mad. 539:44 or. L. J. 45). I have looked into that ruling. It will not help the petitioner. It was mainly concerned with the question of "wrongful confinement," and not with "wrongful restraint," as here, though that question was also incidentally referred to by way of obiter. The learned Magistrate relied on the ruling in Gopala Reddi v. Lakshmi Reddi, 1916 M. W. N. Cr. 118 : (A.I.R. (34) 1947 Mad. 124: 48 Cr. L. J. 459), a later judgment of Happell J. and more or less a direct ruling on the point, on similar facts, and convicted and sentenced the petitioner.