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: Singara Babu Alias Babu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 09, 1943
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/803334

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

In Re: Singara Babu Alias Babu

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1944Mad445

Excerpt

- orderkuppuswami ayyar, j.1. the petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under section 448, penal code and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 30. the evidence disclosed that he entered into the shop of p.w. 1 for the purpose of seizing the measures of the trader p.w. 1 because he suspected that he was having false measures. it cannot therefore be said that when he entered the shop he entered there with intent to commit any offence. if a person suspects that a trader, of whom he is a customer, is having false measures he is entitled to get in and see whether he has correct measures or not and that is all that the petitioner is said to have done. it would not therefore amount to criminal trespass.2. the conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. the fine if already collected will be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 448, Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 30. The evidence disclosed that he entered into the shop of P.W. 1 for the purpose of seizing the measures of the trader P.W. 1 because he suspected that he was having false measures. It cannot therefore be said that when he entered the shop he entered there with intent to commit any offence. If a person suspects that a trader, of whom he is a customer, is having false measures he is entitled to get in and see whether he has Correct measures or not and that is all that the petitioner is said to have done. It would not therefore amount to criminal trespass.

2. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the petitioner is acquitted. The fine if already collected will be refunded.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Singara Babu Alias Babu 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