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: Appu Goundan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 31, 1938
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/793802

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: Appu Goundan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1938Mad784; 175Ind.Cas.891; (1938)2MLJ43

Excerpt

- orderhorwill, j.1. i find no reason to interfere. a statement by an accused person that the offence committed by him is a more serious one, not triable by the magistrate, does not deprive the magistrate of jurisdiction unless the prosecution accept the truth of that statement or the magistrate is of opinion that it is true. as the accused was found in possession of wash, the presumption set out in section 64 operates and the accused is presumed to have committed an offence punishable under section 55 of act i of 1886.2. the criminal revision petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. I find no reason to interfere. A statement by an accused person that the offence committed by him is a more serious one, not triable by the Magistrate, does not deprive the Magistrate of jurisdiction unless the prosecution accept the truth of that statement or the Magistrate is of opinion that it is true. As the accused was found in possession of wash, the presumption set out in Section 64 operates and the accused is presumed to have committed an offence punishable under Section 55 of Act I of 1886.

2. The Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Appu Goundan 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