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: Markapuram Pedda Subbanna

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 21, 1939
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778227

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: Markapuram Pedda Subbanna

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1939Mad469; (1939)1MLJ899

Excerpt

- orderlakshmana rao, j.1. the petitioner was charged before the sub-divisional magistrate of jammalamadugu under section 29 of the indian telegraphs act for causing a false message to be transmitted from cudappah and his objection to the jurisdiction of the sub-divisional magistrate of jammalamdugu to try the case was upheld by the sub-divisional magistrate. the records were then submitted by the sub-divisional magistrate to the district magistrate and the case was transferred by the district magistrate to the file of the sub-divisional magistrate of cudappah who has jurisdiction. this as held in sikka goundan, in re a.i.r. 1923 mad. 326, is not permissible and the order of transfer cannot be sustained. it is therefore set aside and the case is re-transferred to the file of the sub-divisional magistrate of jammalamadugu for disposal according to law.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The petitioner was charged before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jammalamadugu under Section 29 of the Indian Telegraphs Act for causing a false message to be transmitted from Cudappah and his objection to the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jammalamdugu to try the case was upheld by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The records were then submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the District Magistrate and the case was transferred by the District Magistrate to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Cudappah who has jurisdiction. This as held in Sikka Goundan, In re A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 326, is not permissible and the order of transfer cannot be sustained. It is therefore set aside and the case is re-transferred to the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Jammalamadugu for disposal according to law.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Markapuram Pedda Subbanna 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