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.

In Re: Mathayyan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 26, 1944
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/807913

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.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Mathayyan

Legal References

Cases Referred
Emperor v. Muthiah Swamiar
Reported In
AIR1945Mad85

Excerpt

- orderkuppuswami ayyar, j.1. since the case has been taken on file and is being tried, there ought to be no objection to the granting of a copy of a statement recorded under section 164, criminal p.c., as it would be necessary for the cross-examination of the witness. as a matter of fact, it will be more convenient to the court itself to grant such copies in advance as it may avoid the necessity for an adjournment on the ground that the cross-examining counsel is not posted with the facts stated in the statement recorded under section 164, criminal p.c. the lower court is therefore directed to furnish a copy to the petitioner in time to enable him to cross-examine the witness. the decision in emperor v. muthiah swamiar (1907) 30 mad. 466 has no application to the facts of this case. all that was stated there is that a person under remand is not entitled to a copy before the commencement of the preliminary enquiry. in this case the preliminary enquiry has commenced and witnesses have been examined.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. Since the case has been taken on file and is being tried, there ought to be no objection to the granting of a copy of a statement recorded Under Section 164, Criminal P.C., as it would be necessary for the cross-examination of the witness. As a matter of fact, it will be more convenient to the Court itself to grant such copies in advance as it may avoid the necessity for an adjournment on the ground that the cross-examining counsel is not posted with the facts stated in the statement recorded Under Section 164, Criminal P.C. The lower Court is therefore directed to furnish a copy to the petitioner in time to enable him to cross-examine the witness. The decision in Emperor v. Muthiah Swamiar (1907) 30 Mad. 466 has no application to the facts of this case. All that was stated there is that a person under remand is not entitled to a copy before the commencement of the preliminary enquiry. In this case the preliminary enquiry has commenced and witnesses have been examined.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial