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: K.G. Mahadevan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 17, 1947
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/784442

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.

- - 2. In these circumstances the trial was bad.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: K.G. Mahadevan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1948Mad102; (1947)2MLJ307

Excerpt

- - 2. in these circumstances the trial was bad.orderrajamannar, j.1. an appealable sentence has been awarded in this case. in such a case under section 362(1) of the code of criminal procedure the learned magistrate shall take down the evidence of the witnesses and such evidence shall form part of the record. but evidently this procedure was not followed and when an application was made by the advocate for the accused for copy of the evidence he was informed that the evidence was not recorded as the case was being heard summarily. the notes taken down by the learned magistrate were not evidently intended to be a record of evidence as contemplated by section 362(1) of the code of criminal procedure because some of the statements are in the third person. no endorsement is made with respect to p. w. 3's evidence if there was any cross-examination.2. in these circumstances the trial was bad. the conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is sent back for trial de novo by the second presidency magistrate, george town, madras.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Rajamannar, J.

1. An appealable sentence has been awarded in this case. In such a case under Section 362(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the learned Magistrate shall take down the evidence of the witnesses and such evidence shall form part of the record. But evidently this procedure was not followed and when an application was made by the advocate for the accused for copy of the evidence he was informed that the evidence was not recorded as the case was being heard summarily. The notes taken down by the learned Magistrate were not evidently intended to be a record of evidence as contemplated by Section 362(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure because some of the statements are in the third person. No endorsement is made with respect to P. W. 3's evidence if there was any cross-examination.

2. In these circumstances the trial was bad. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the case is sent back for trial de novo by the Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial