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: Payini Chellaya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Feb 09, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/798130

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 409, exc. 9 - Defamation--Privilege--Defamatory statements by accused in the course of his examination under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Payini Chellaya

Legal References

Cases Referred
In Hayes v. Christian
Reported In
1Ind.Cas.248

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 409, exc. 9 - defamation--privilege--defamatory statements by accused in the course of his examination under section 342, criminal procedure code. - order1. we are of opinion that statements of a defamatory character made by an accused person in the course of the statement which he is invited to make under section 342, criminal procedure code, must be considered privileged. in hayes v. christian 15 m.k 414 it was laid down that statements made by an accused person or his counsel in the ordinary course of his defence are privileged, but it was held that such privilege did not protect defamatory statements against a witness interjected during the examination of such, witness by the accused who was represented by counsel. such statements, in the opinion of the court, could not be held to have been made in the ordinary course of a legal proceeding and were, therefore, not entitled to privilege. in the present case we think the complaint was rightly dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. We are of opinion that statements of a defamatory character made by an accused person in the course of the statement which he is invited to make under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, must be considered privileged. In Hayes v. Christian 15 M.k 414 it was laid down that statements made by an accused person or his counsel in the ordinary course of his defence are privileged, but it was held that such privilege did not protect defamatory statements against a witness interjected during the examination of such, witness by the accused who was represented by counsel. Such statements, in the opinion of the Court, could not be held to have been made in the ordinary course of a legal proceeding and were, therefore, not entitled to privilege. In the present case we think the complaint was rightly dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial