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: Ibraya Rowthan and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 20, 1927
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/788457

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: Ibraya Rowthan and anr.

Legal References

Reported In
(1927)53MLJ762

Excerpt

- orderwallace, j.1. the order of the lower court directing that petitioner should, in default of giving security, suffer simple imprisonment for one year, cannot be upheld on two grounds : (1) section 123 contemplates that the accused shall be separately brought up for sentence if security is not furnished, that the court should in its judgment fix a date for the furnishing of security, without any order for alternative imprisonment, and then if, by that date, accused has not furnished the security, he is to appear and receive sentence under section 123; (2) it was wrong to fix a period of one year, since accused is entitled to be released from custody the moment he furnishes the security; the sentence ought to run 'for one year or until such date within that year as the required security be furnished.' as security appears to have been furnished in this case, no further action is called for. i do not, as at present advised, subscribe to the contention that a summary court has no power to award, under section 123, more than 3 months' imprisonment.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Wallace, J.

1. The order of the lower court directing that petitioner should, in default of giving security, suffer simple imprisonment for one year, cannot be upheld on two grounds : (1) Section 123 contemplates that the accused shall be separately brought up for sentence if security is not furnished, that the Court should in its judgment fix a date for the furnishing of security, without any order for alternative imprisonment, and then if, by that date, accused has not furnished the security, he is to appear and receive sentence under Section 123; (2) it was wrong to fix a period of one year, since accused is entitled to be released from custody the moment he furnishes the security; the sentence ought to run 'for one year or until such date within that year as the required security be furnished.' As security appears to have been furnished in this case, no further action is called for. I do not, as at present advised, subscribe to the contention that a summary Court has no power to award, under Section 123, more than 3 months' imprisonment.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial