Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: Subbaraya Vathyar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 28, 1904
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776525

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Subbaraya Vathyar

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Kuppu I.L.R.
Reported In
(1905)15MLJ489

Excerpt

- order1. the district magistrate professes to have been acting in a judicial proceeding so as to give himself jurisdiction to act under section 476 of the code of criminal procedure. his calling up the records under section 435 is not a judicial proceeding as declared in queen-empress v. kuppu i.l.r. 7 m. 560 and as he did nothing else that would constitute a ' judicial proceeding,' he had no power to make the order that he did under section 476 of the code of criminal procedure. further to adopt, the procedure under section 476, immediate action is contemplated and to take such procedure after the lapse of several months is illegal.2. the order of the district magistrate is accordingly reversed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The District Magistrate professes to have been acting in a judicial proceeding so as to give himself jurisdiction to act under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His calling up the records under Section 435 is not a judicial proceeding as declared in Queen-Empress v. Kuppu I.L.R. 7 M. 560 and as he did nothing else that would constitute a ' judicial proceeding,' he had no power to make the order that he did under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further to adopt, the procedure under Section 476, immediate action is contemplated and to take such procedure after the lapse of several months is illegal.

2. The order of the District Magistrate is accordingly reversed.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Subbaraya Vathyar vs Same Subject Criminal
Criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales