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: Krishnaswamy Udayan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 02, 1910
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/798224

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.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 256 - Criminal trial--Procedure--Close of prosecution case--Petition by accused for admisson of letter by prosecution witnesses-Right of accused to re-call and reexamine prosecution witnesses. - - 2. If the letter alleged to have been written by some of the prosecut...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Krishnaswamy Udayan and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
7Ind.Cas.712

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 256 - criminal trial--procedure--close of prosecution case--petition by accused for admisson of letter by prosecution witnesses-right of accused to re-call and reexamine prosecution witnesses. - - 2. if the letter alleged to have been written by some of the prosecution witnesses would show that the evidence now given is unreliable, then the accused ought to have been allowed to recall those prosecution witnesses to be examined about that letter.ordersankaran nair, j.1. it seem to be clear that the petition said to have been presented by one of the accused to the deputy magistrate ought to have been received in evidence.2. if the letter alleged to have been written by some of the prosecution witnesses would show that the evidence now given is unreliable, then the accused ought to have been allowed to recall those prosecution witnesses to be examined about that letter. i, therefore, set aside the judgment in appeal, direct the sessions judge to cause the production of the petition by the deputy magistrate, re-call and examine the prosecution witnesses about the letter alleged to have been written by them and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sankaran Nair, J.

1. It seem to be clear that the petition said to have been presented by one of the accused to the Deputy Magistrate ought to have been received in evidence.

2. If the letter alleged to have been written by some of the prosecution witnesses would show that the evidence now given is unreliable, then the accused ought to have been allowed to recall those prosecution witnesses to be examined about that letter. I, therefore, set aside the judgment in appeal, direct the Sessions Judge to cause the production of the petition by the Deputy Magistrate, re-call and examine the prosecution witnesses about the letter alleged to have been written by them and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial