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: Ramalinga Odayar

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 20, 1928
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/792058

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
Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Ramalinga Odayar

Legal References

Reported In
113Ind.Cas.672; (1929)56MLJ600

Excerpt

- orderreilly, j.1. i do not agree with the additional district magistrate that the provisions of section 231 of the code of criminal procedure are inapplicable to cases to which section 228 applies. under section 231 of the code of criminal procedure the accused had the right to re-call prosecution witnesses after the alteration of the charge even if that alteration could not affect his defence, as the magistrate supposes, and the magistrate had no discretion in the matter. the witnesses whom the accused wishes to re-call will be re-called.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Reilly, J.

1. I do not agree with the Additional District Magistrate that the provisions of Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are inapplicable to cases to which Section 228 applies. Under Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the accused had the right to re-call prosecution witnesses after the alteration of the charge even if that alteration could not affect his defence, as the Magistrate supposes, and the Magistrate had no discretion in the matter. The witnesses whom the accused wishes to re-call will be re-called.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Ramalinga Odayar vs Same Subject Civil
Civil

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