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: Kuppammall

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 16, 1906
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781993

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Act V of 1898, Sections 517-523, Sections not applicable where there was no trial and no evidence recorded. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Kuppammall

Legal References

Reported In
(1906)ILR29Mad375

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - act v of 1898, sections 517-523, sections not applicable where there was no trial and no evidence recorded. - orderarnold white, c.j.1. i think the magistrate was right. it was conceded by the vakil for the petitioner that the provisions of section 517, criminal procedure code, did not apply. his contention was that he was entitled to an order under section 523. it seems to me that on the facts of the present case, section 523 has no application. there is no finding, and there is nothing to show, that the property in question belongs to the petitioner. as i read the section, there is no obligation on the magistrate to hold an enquiry simply for the purpose of deciding whether the property claimed is the property of the petitioner.2. the criminal revision case and the criminal miscellaneous petition are dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Arnold White, C.J.

1. I think the Magistrate was right. It was conceded by the vakil for the petitioner that the provisions of Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, did not apply. His contention was that he was entitled to an order under Section 523. It seems to me that on the facts of the present case, Section 523 has no application. There is no finding, and there is nothing to show, that the property in question belongs to the petitioner. As I read the section, there is no obligation on the Magistrate to hold an enquiry simply for the purpose of deciding whether the property claimed is the property of the petitioner.

2. The criminal revision case and the criminal miscellaneous petition are dismissed.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Kuppammall vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Arnold White, C.J.
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