Skip to content
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.

In Re: Kotta Veeraiah and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 02, 1948
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776937

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

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

Citation
Court
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - 1. I am not satisfied that the case against the different accused has received separate and sufficient attention at the hands of the learned Judge.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Kotta Veeraiah and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
1949CriLJ93; (1948)2MLJ107

Excerpt

- - 1. i am not satisfied that the case against the different accused has received separate and sufficient attention at the hands of the learned judge.ordergovinda menon, j.1. i am not satisfied that the case against the different accused has received separate and sufficient attention at the hands of the learned judge. the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in certain respects does not make any distinction between the acts attributed to accused 1 who has now been acquitted and to those attributed to the petitioner here. in a case where a number of people have been jointly tried for an offence under section 147 along with an offence resulting from specific acts, the lower court should have considered the evidence against each of the accused separately and given definite findings as regards the presence and part taken by each. moreover, there are inconsistencies and discrepancies even as regards the evidence relating to the part attributed to some. for example, as against accused 6, 7, 9 and 11 the witnesses are not quite uniform in their depositions. in these circumstances, i get aside the order of the lower appellate court only as regards the present petitioners and direct that the appeal-be re-heard and disposed of according to law.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Govinda Menon, J.

1. I am not satisfied that the case against the different accused has received separate and sufficient attention at the hands of the learned Judge. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses in certain respects does not make any distinction between the acts attributed to accused 1 who has now been acquitted and to those attributed to the petitioner here. In a case where a number of people have been jointly tried for an offence under Section 147 along with an offence resulting from specific acts, the lower Court should have considered the evidence against each of the accused separately and given definite findings as regards the presence and part taken by each. Moreover, there are inconsistencies and discrepancies even as regards the evidence relating to the part attributed to some. For example, as against accused 6, 7, 9 and 11 the witnesses are not quite uniform in their depositions. In these circumstances, I get aside the order of the lower appellate Court only as regards the present petitioners and direct that the appeal-be re-heard and disposed of according to law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial