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: M. Muthaya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 27, 1915
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787947

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
Property

Case Summary

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

Abkari Act (Madras Act I of 1886), Sections 56 and 64 - Offence under Section 56 not by licensee but by his depot-writer--Conviction, legality of. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: M. Muthaya

Legal References

Reported In
(1916)ILR39Mad895

Excerpt

abkari act (madras act i of 1886), sections 56 and 64 - offence under section 56 not by licensee but by his depot-writer--conviction, legality of. - ayling, j.1. it is argued that petitioner being merely the depot-writer and not the licensee, is not liable to prosecution under section 56 of the abkari act, it has been held by a bench of this court in an unreported ease--re sudalaimuthu (1886) 1 wei cr. r. 647--that sections 64 and 56 must be read together, and that not only the licensee, but the actual offender (in this case the petitioner) is liable to prosecution for an offence under section 56. following this, we must reject petitioner's contention.2. no other ground for interference is shown. the petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Ayling, J.

1. It is argued that petitioner being merely the depot-writer and not the licensee, is not liable to prosecution under Section 56 of the Abkari Act, It has been held by a bench of this Court in an unreported ease--Re Sudalaimuthu (1886) 1 Wei Cr. R. 647--that Sections 64 and 56 must be read together, and that not only the licensee, but the actual offender (in this case the petitioner) is liable to prosecution for an offence under Section 56. Following this, we must reject petitioner's contention.

2. No other ground for interference is shown. The petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: M. Muthaya vs Same Subject Property Same Judge Ayling and ;Phillips, JJ.
Property

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