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: Suppaya Tharagan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Nov 26, 1912
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/796853

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 476 - Sanction to prosecute--Section 537(b)--Illegality or Irregularity. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Suppaya Tharagan

Legal References

Reported In
(1914)ILR37Mad317

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 476 - sanction to prosecute--section 537(b)--illegality or irregularity. - order1. we are unable to agree with the sessions judge that there was any illegality in the order of thomas, the magistrate, under section 476, criminal procedure code, on the 15th january 1912.2. his omission to at once direct the accused to be taken before the nearest first class magistrate was at most an irregularity, which was set right by the subsequent order directing him to be taken before such magistrate. such irregularity is expressly cured by section 537(b), criminal procedure code. we are unable to agree with the view taken by stanley, c.j., in in the matter of the petition of bhup kunwar i.l.r. (1904) all. 256 with reference to the construction of that clause.3. we set aside the order of acquittal made by the sessions judge and direct him to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of it according to law.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. We are unable to agree with the Sessions Judge that there was any illegality in the order of THOMAS, the Magistrate, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, on the 15th January 1912.

2. His omission to at once direct the accused to be taken before the nearest First Class Magistrate was at most an irregularity, which was set right by the subsequent order directing him to be taken before such Magistrate. Such irregularity is expressly cured by Section 537(b), Criminal Procedure Code. We are unable to agree with the view taken by Stanley, C.J., in In the matter of the petition of Bhup Kunwar I.L.R. (1904) All. 256 with reference to the construction of that clause.

3. We set aside the order of acquittal made by the Sessions Judge and direct him to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of it according to law.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Suppaya Tharagan vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Benson and ;Sundara Ayyar, JJ.
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