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: Muthukaruppa Servai

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 23, 1928
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/777848

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: Muthukaruppa Servai

Legal References

Reported In
(1928)55MLJ626

Excerpt

- orderreilly, j.1. it is alleged by the petitioner, and his allegation is supported by the pleaders who appeared before the sub-magistrate and is not denied by the public prosecutor, that, when at the conclusion of the evidence the petitioner's pleader wished to argue the case for his client, the sub-magistrate refused to hear him.2. the petitioner had a right to be heard through the pleader who was defending him, and the magistrate's denial of that right to him cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity, as is suggested for the public prosecutor.3. the conviction and sentence are set aside. the case will be re-tried by such magistrate as the district magistrate directs.4. the petitioner will remain on bail as at present.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Reilly, J.

1. It is alleged by the petitioner, and his allegation is supported by the pleaders who appeared before the Sub-Magistrate and is not denied by the Public Prosecutor, that, when at the conclusion of the evidence the petitioner's pleader wished to argue the case for his client, the Sub-Magistrate refused to hear him.

2. The petitioner had a right to be heard through the pleader who was defending him, and the Magistrate's denial of that right to him cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity, as is suggested for the Public Prosecutor.

3. The conviction and sentence are set aside. The case will be re-tried by such Magistrate as the District Magistrate directs.

4. The petitioner will remain on bail as at present.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Muthukaruppa Servai 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