LAWS(PVC)-1924-11-156

R W VALLIANT Vs. NELEAZER

Decided On November 24, 1924
R W VALLIANT Appellant
V/S
NELEAZER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, R.W. Valliant, has been convicted by the Third Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, of an offence punishable under Section 363, I.P.C., and sentenced to be detained till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or undergo three months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment. He has obtained a Rule calling on the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on him should not be set aside on the two following grounds: For that upon the facts found and proved in the case, no offence under Section 363 has been male out against the accused--and the learned Magistrate has erred in law in not holding so. For that the reasons given by the learned Magistrate for convicting the accused are unsound and illegal.

(2.) The petitioner has been convicted of having kidnapped Mildred Eleazar, aged, about 15 years and 5 months, from the lawful guardianship of her mother. It appears that about two months before the date of occurrence the 24 May last, the petitioner and the girl met and struck up a friendship. This friendship ripened into affection. The girl's mother and brother disapproved of this, There was an episode on the 20 May which led to the girl being chastised by her mother, On the afternoon of the 24 May there was a quarrel between the girl and her brother. They kicked each other and the girl left her home and went to the house of a friend, Mrs. Victor. From there she wrote a letter to her mother in which she said she was not coming back. At Mr. Victor's she was met by the petitioner and the two went to the house of Miss Christian, a sister of Mrs. Victor. The girl wanted to stay the night there, but Miss Christian's brother did not consent to this. The petitioner, who had left the girl in order to fulfil an engagement as a musician at the Saturday Club, returned to the Victor's at about 8 p.m. and took her to his mother's house in Kidderpore where she remained for four days. In the meantime the police had been informed of the disappearance of the girl. The petitioner, when questioned about the girl, denied knowledge of her whereabouts, but after he was arrested he wrote to his father and the girl was produced and made over to her mother.

(3.) In order to support a conviction for kidnapping from lawful guardianship the following are the points requiring proof: (1) That the person kidnapped was then a minor under 16 years of age, if a female. (2) That such person was in the keeping of a lawful guardian. (3) That the accused took or enticed such person out of such keeping. (4) That he did so without the consent of the lawful guardian.