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: Solai Gounden and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 13, 1913
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781802

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: Solai Gounden and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Muthiah Chetty v. Emperor I.L.R.
Reported In
AIR1914Mad562; (1913)25MLJ403

Excerpt

- 1. we are of opinion that the jurisdiction of an appellate court to order a person who has been convicted of one of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 103 of the code of criminal procedure is not restricted to cases where the conviction was by one of the courts specified in the sub-section the words 'an appellate court,' are quite general and the word 'also' indicates that the powers given by the section may be exercised by the courts mentioned in sub-section (1) and by any appellate court.2. we think the words ' under this section' in sub-section (3) have reference to the powers given by the section and not to the courts by which these powers are, in the first instance, exerciseable. we are unable to agree with the decision in muthiah chetty v. emperor i.l.r. (1905) m. 190 and in the other cases referred to in the order of reference in which that decision was followed. we would answer the question which has been referred to us in the affirmative.

Full Judgment

1. We are of opinion that the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court to order a person who has been convicted of one of the offences mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not restricted to cases where the conviction was by one of the courts specified in the Sub-section The words 'an Appellate Court,' are quite general and the word 'also' indicates that the powers given by the section may be exercised by the courts mentioned in Sub-section (1) and by any Appellate Court.

2. We think the words ' under this section' in Sub-section (3) have reference to the powers given by the section and not to the courts by which these powers are, in the first instance, exerciseable. We are unable to agree with the decision in Muthiah Chetty v. Emperor I.L.R. (1905) M. 190 and in the other cases referred to in the order of reference in which that decision was followed. We would answer the question which has been referred to us in the affirmative.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial