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 →

Balasundaram

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 03, 1929
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/801788

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
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balasundaram

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1930Mad191

Excerpt

- orderreilly, j.1. the information given in the charge sheet in this case is not very full; but i cannot say that it does not comply with the provisions of section 173, criminal p.c. the contention that section requires that an abstract of the evidence to be given by each of the witnesses mentioned should be entered in the report of charge sheet appears to me unsound. nor is there in my opinion anything in the suggestion that this form of charge sheet, prescribed by g.o. no. 3,487 law (general), dated 16th october 1928, and published in the port st. george gazette dated 23rd october 1928, could not legally be prescribed under section 173, criminal p.c., because it requires less details to be given than were required in the form previously prescribed. this petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Reilly, J.

1. The information given in the charge sheet in this case is not very full; but I cannot say that it does not comply with the provisions of Section 173, Criminal P.C. The contention that section requires that an abstract of the evidence to be given by each of the witnesses mentioned should be entered in the report of charge sheet appears to me unsound. Nor is there in my opinion anything in the suggestion that this form of charge sheet, prescribed by G.O. No. 3,487 Law (General), dated 16th October 1928, and published in the Port St. George Gazette dated 23rd October 1928, could not legally be prescribed under Section 173, Criminal P.C., because it requires less details to be given than were required in the form previously prescribed. This petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties Balasundaram vs Same Subject Criminal
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