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: Chuckler Sevuttu Raman

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 21, 1946
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/780072

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
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: Chuckler Sevuttu Raman

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1947Mad129; (1946)2MLJ272

Excerpt

- orderkuppuswami ayyar, j.1. this is not a case in which the medical evidence indicates that it is not possible to make the accused know what the proceedings are. of course somebody will have to take the trouble to speak to the accused in close range and explain him what all has taken place in court as and when the proceedings go on. it is no doubt a difficult job, but then that will have to be done because the person is deaf. it cannot therefore be said that it is a case in which it is not possible to the magistrate to make the accused understand what is going on in court. merely because the magistrate will have to take some trouble in making the accused know what is going on, i will not be justified in passing any orders dispensing with the taking of any efforts to make the accused know what is going on. the medical evidence, according to the letter of reference, is that the accused person is only slightly deaf and there is evidence of one of the witnesses for prosecution who knew him for 15 years that though he is deaf, he could hear when talked to at a close range. the papers are returned to the magistrate to proceed with the case in the light of the observations made above.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. This is not a case in which the medical evidence indicates that it is not possible to make the accused know what the proceedings are. Of course somebody will have to take the trouble to speak to the accused in close range and explain him what all has taken place in Court as and when the proceedings go on. It is no doubt a difficult job, but then that will have to be done because the person is deaf. It cannot therefore be said that it is a case in which it is not possible to the Magistrate to make the accused understand what is going on in Court. Merely because the Magistrate will have to take some trouble in making the accused know what is going on, I will not be justified in passing any orders dispensing with the taking of any efforts to make the accused know what is going on. The medical evidence, according to the letter of reference, is that the accused person is only slightly deaf and there is evidence of one of the witnesses for prosecution who knew him for 15 years that though he is deaf, he could hear when talked to at a close range. The papers are returned to the Magistrate to proceed with the case in the light of the observations made above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial