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: Narayana Reddiar and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Chennai Decided Jan 10, 1952
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791114

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Case Nos. 1352 to 1355 of 1950
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Narayana Reddiar and ors.

Advocate G. Gopalaswami, Adv.

Respondent

Advocate Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182
Reported In
AIR1954Mad245; (1952)IMLJ803

Excerpt

- orderramaswami, j.1. in the peculiar circumstances ofthe case the prosecutions under section 182, penalcode, ought not to have been launched becausethe offence for which these persons have beenconvicted is for the offence of tergiversation,namely that they have not stuck to their previous statement notwithstanding that the previous statement might be untrue and secondlysticking to the previous statement would onlybe to incriminate themselves because the lawdeals with the bribe-givers and bribe-takers onthe same par and treats them as accomplices ofeach other. therefore when it has not beenshown whether the information given by thesepersons was false or true and secondly whenthese accused persons were not bound to incriminate themselves these prosecutions weremisconceived. the convictions and sentencescannot be supported and they are set aside. thefine amounts, if collected, would be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Ramaswami, J.

1. In the peculiar circumstances ofthe case the prosecutions under Section 182, PenalCode, ought not to have been launched becausethe offence for which these persons have beenconvicted is for the offence of tergiversation,namely that they have not stuck to their previous statement notwithstanding that the previous statement might be untrue and secondlysticking to the previous statement would onlybe to incriminate themselves because the lawdeals with the bribe-givers and bribe-takers onthe same par and treats them as accomplices ofeach other. Therefore when it has not beenshown whether the information given by thesepersons was false or true and secondly whenthese accused persons were not bound to incriminate themselves these prosecutions weremisconceived. The convictions and sentencescannot be supported and they are set aside. Thefine amounts, if collected, would be refunded.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Narayana Reddiar and ors. vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Ramaswami, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 182
Criminal Accused person Offence of set aside E la

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