KASINATHA PILLAI Vs. SHANMUGAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No doubt, the language used in the three parts of Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code, is different, but it is, I think, impossible to lay down any general principle Or to attempt to define what precisely is meant by the word "groundless." Probably, as good a definition as any, is that the evidence must be such that no conviction could be rested on it. It obviously does not mean that the evidence discloses no offence whatever.

(2.) In this particular case, I see no reason to dissent from the view taken by the Courts below. It is most unlikely that any Court would have convicted after hearing the evidence of the only witness examined. The petition is dismissed. Krishnan Pandalai, J.

(3.) This is a petition to revise the order of discharge passed by the Second Class Magistrate of Tuticorin under Section 253(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint was brought by the father-in-law of one Sankaragomati Chettiar who had recently died against the cousins of the deceased and alleged that the daughter of the complainant (widow of the deceased) entrusted her own and her children's jewels worth about Rs. 4,000 and her husband's account books to the accused soon after the 15 day ceremony, for the purpose of selling the jewels and realising the outstanding and investing the proceeds for the benefit of the widow and her children and that when the accused were later questioned they denied the receipt of the jewels and accounts. The complainant stated that he presented the complaint as per his daughter's instructions and charged that the accused committed an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code.. The Magistrate having summoned the accused, the complainant was examined and cross-examined at length on 21 December, 1927 and 11 January, 1928. The complainant had been previously informed that his daughter, a resident of Tuticorin and the real complainant should be brought to Court to be examined on the 11 January. On that day she was absent. The complainant asked for a commission to examine her which was refused, the Magistrate remarking that the application was not bona fide. Then the complainant asked for an adjournment which was also refused. The defence, as appeared from the cross-examination of the complainant, was that the deceased Sankaragomati Chettiar had left a will under which first accused was executor and that he was in possession of the estate as such and not under any entrustment by the widow and that the complainant, an impecunious person, was using his daughter or her name as a tool to coerce the accused to part with the estate.