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: Srinivasan and anr.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Chennai Decided Oct 03, 1969
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/794504

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Case No. 407 of 1968 and Crl. Revn. Petn. No. 401 of 1968
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
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 510

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Srinivasan and anr.

Advocate Fyzee Mahmood, Adv.;K.R. Natarajan, Adv. for ;Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1970Mad512; 1970CriLJ1592

Excerpt

- orderk.n. mudaliyar, j.1. mr. fyzee mahmood, appearing for accused 1 and 3 in this revision petition argues that the contraband in this case, namely. m. os. nos. 1 to 7 contained brandy is not proved in the court of the trial magistrate, although the appellate court has acted upon the report of analysis by the assistant director and assistant chemical examiner to government for excise and prohibition. the appellate court has erred in acting on this document without giving opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the concerned witness on the relevant report. the appellate court proceeded on the footing that m os. 1 to 7 contained brandy, a prohibited liquor. this has got to be proved by the author of the analysis report by giving evidence and marking the said document. this infirmity alone vitiates the conviction of the petitioners. i set aside the conviction of the petitioners and the sentences imposed on them and direct retrial of the case. it is open to the petitioners at the conclusion of their retrial to raise their contentions both on facts and law for their acquittal.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. Mr. Fyzee Mahmood, appearing for accused 1 and 3 in this revision petition argues that the contraband in this case, namely. M. Os. Nos. 1 to 7 contained brandy is not proved in the court of the trial Magistrate, although the appellate Court has acted upon the report of analysis by the Assistant Director and Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government for Excise and Prohibition. The appellate Court has erred in acting on this document without giving opportunity to the accused to cross-examine the concerned witness on the relevant report. The appellate court proceeded on the footing that M Os. 1 to 7 contained brandy, a prohibited liquor. This has got to be proved by the author of the analysis report by giving evidence and marking the said document. This infirmity alone vitiates the conviction of the petitioners. I set aside the conviction of the petitioners and the sentences imposed on them and direct retrial of the case. It is open to the petitioners at the conclusion of their retrial to raise their contentions both on facts and law for their acquittal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial