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.

Public Prosecutor Vs. Munusami Mudali

Public Prosecutor vs Munusami Mudali

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 06, 1929
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/806416

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
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - The Act seems to be badly drafted.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Public Prosecutor

Respondent

Munusami Mudali

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1930Mad448

Excerpt

- - the act seems to be badly drafted.jackson, j.1. this is an appeal against an acquittal. accused was acquitted for an offence under section 224, i.p. c, because his arrest in his house by a searching abkari officer was held to be illegal.2. the point taken by the learned public prosecutor is that under section 30, act i of 1886, the collector may issue a warrant authorizing a search, and under section 31 an abkari or police officer of a certain rank after recording reasons may search. the officer in the latter case under section 31 may, if necessary, arrest, but, though the person to whom a warrant is given, may be an officer of the same rank, he is not authorized under section 30 or any other section to arrest. it is anomalous that an officer armed with nothing more than his own report can arrest, and an officer armed with a regular search warrant cannot arrest.3. i fully see the anomaly,.but i am unable to read the act so as to avoid it. the act seems to be badly drafted.4. in these circumstances, the acquittal must stand. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Jackson, J.

1. This is an appeal against an acquittal. Accused was acquitted for an offence under Section 224, I.P. C, because his arrest in his house by a searching abkari officer was held to be illegal.

2. The point taken by the learned Public Prosecutor is that under Section 30, Act i of 1886, the Collector may issue a warrant authorizing a search, and under Section 31 an abkari or police officer of a certain rank after recording reasons may search. The officer in the latter case under Section 31 may, if necessary, arrest, but, though the person to whom a warrant is given, may be an officer of the same rank, he is not authorized under Section 30 or any other section to arrest. It is anomalous that an officer armed with nothing more than his own report can arrest, and an officer armed with a regular search warrant cannot arrest.

3. I fully see the anomaly,.but I am unable to read the Act so as to avoid it. The Act seems to be badly drafted.

4. In these circumstances, the acquittal must stand. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial