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: Mari and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 24, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/806573

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.

Conviction under two section - Appeal--Convition under one section quashed--Sentence not reduce--Whether enhancement--Revision--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 435, 439. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Mari and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
5Ind.Cas.754

Excerpt

conviction under two section - appeal--convition under one section quashed--sentence not reduce--whether enhancement--revision--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 435, 439. - ordermiller, j.1. in this case a ground is taken that the sentence ought to have been reduced. no doubt that must be done when a sentence has been passed for an offence of which the accused is afterwards found to be not guilty. the effect of not doing so is, as has been held, to enhance the sentence passed for another offence. but here the true inference to be drawn from the sentences is that the magistrate did not mean to pass any sentence for the offence of hurt and that being so there was nothing to reduce. i dismiss this petition.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Miller, J.

1. In this case a ground is taken that the sentence ought to have been reduced. No doubt that must be done when a sentence has been passed for an offence of which the accused is afterwards found to be not guilty. The effect of not doing so is, as has been held, to enhance the sentence passed for another offence. But here the true inference to be drawn from the sentences is that the Magistrate did not mean to pass any sentence for the offence of hurt and that being so there was nothing to reduce. I dismiss this petition.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Mari and ors. vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Miller, 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