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: Muthiah Chetty

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 11, 1923
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/802955

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 439 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 138--Criminal trial--Procedure--Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses--Accused, right of, denial of--Revision. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Muthiah Chetty

Legal References

Reported In
81Ind.Cas.44

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 439 - evidence act (1 of 1872), section 138--criminal trial--procedure--cross-examination of prosecution witnesses--accused, right of, denial of--revision. - orderwallace, j.1. no magistrate or court can refuse to allow an accused person to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, before charge is framed, and the magistrate's procedure in refusing to allow such cross-examination was most irregular and in contravention of the law. without going into the larger question whether that procedure has rendered illegal the charge framed on evidence so irregularly taken, i consider that the fairest course to the accused is to cancel the charge and direct that the cross-examination of the witnesses be now permitted. i direct accordingly.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Wallace, J.

1. No Magistrate or Court can refuse to allow an accused person to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, before charge is framed, and the Magistrate's procedure in refusing to allow such cross-examination was most irregular and in contravention of the law. Without going into the larger question whether that procedure has rendered illegal the charge framed on evidence so irregularly taken, I consider that the fairest course to the accused is to cancel the charge and direct that the cross-examination of the witnesses be now permitted. I direct accordingly.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Muthiah Chetty vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Wallace, J.
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