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: D.H. Satyam

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 15, 1948
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/791494

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
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: D.H. Satyam

Legal References

Reported In
1949CriLJ68; (1948)2MLJ114

Excerpt

- ordergovinda menon, j.1. i do not see any justification for admitting the revision simply on the ground that the order of acquittal was pronounced on sunday. though rule (1) of the criminal rules of practice states that no judicial work should be transacted on sunday, it does not mean that the court has no jurisdiction to acquit an accused on sunday and release him from custody. the rule provides for cases of absolute urgency. even if the pronouncing of the order of acquittal may not be one of absolute urgency i do not feel that this by itself will justify my interference in revision. this revision petition is therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Govinda Menon, J.

1. I do not see any justification for admitting the revision simply on the ground that the order of acquittal was pronounced on Sunday. Though Rule (1) of the Criminal Rules of practice states that no judicial work should be transacted on Sunday, it does not mean that the Court has no jurisdiction to acquit an accused on Sunday and release him from custody. The rule provides for cases of absolute urgency. Even if the pronouncing of the order of acquittal may not be one of absolute urgency I do not feel that this by itself will justify my interference in revision. This revision petition is therefore dismissed.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: D.H. Satyam vs Same Subject Criminal
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