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: Davaluri Virayya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 19, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/799232

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) Section 480 - Contempt--Walking with creaking shoes near the Court room. -

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Davaluri Virayya

Legal References

Reported In
1Ind.Cas.560

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 480 - contempt--walking with creaking shoes near the court room. - orderabdur rahim, j.1. as pointed out by the referring magistrate, the order of the sub-magistrate was quite unjustified. the sub-magistrate refers to section 480, criminal procedure code, but he had power only to deal with the accused under that section if he committed one of the offences enumerated therein. it is rather surprising that because the accused walked with creaking shoes on his feet near the court room of the sub-magistrate, the latter should have come to the conclusion that the accused intended to insult him or interrupt him in his work. the conviction in this case, as rightly suggested by the referring magistrate, is an abuse of the power conferred by the legislature on courts to punish wilful acts of contempt or interference with the due discharge of judicial duties.2. the conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside, and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. As pointed out by the referring Magistrate, the order of the Sub-Magistrate was quite unjustified. The Sub-Magistrate refers to Section 480, Criminal Procedure Code, but he had power only to deal with the accused under that section if he committed one of the offences enumerated therein. It is rather surprising that because the accused walked with creaking shoes on his feet near the Court room of the Sub-Magistrate, the latter should have come to the conclusion that the accused intended to insult him or interrupt him in his work. The conviction in this case, as rightly suggested by the referring Magistrate, is an abuse of the power conferred by the Legislature on Courts to punish wilful acts of contempt or interference with the due discharge of judicial duties.

2. The conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside, and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial