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.

Pachaimarathan Vs. State

Pachaimarathan vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 02, 1971
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/808165

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - Although under Section 539-B, Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate should record a memorandum of the relevant facts if any observed by him at a local inspection and such memorandum should form part of the record of the case, failure of the Magistrate to make the notes of inspection is only an irregularity and ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pachaimarathan

Respondent

State

Legal References

Cases Referred
Dadekula Dabakka of Kurulappale v. D. Padda Varadappa of Kuriapalle). The
Reported In
1972CriLJ124

Excerpt

- - although under section 539-b, criminal procedure code a magistrate should record a memorandum of the relevant facts if any observed by him at a local inspection and such memorandum should form part of the record of the case, failure of the magistrate to make the notes of inspection is only an irregularity and where there is ample evidence on record to support the magistrate's conclusion and there had not been failure of justice on account of this irregularity.ordersomasundaram, j.1. p. ws. 1 to 3 have sworn that the petitioner gathered a crowd in the public street by abusing certain per-sons and the police. d. ws. 1 and 2 also admit that there was a crowd in the street opposite to the house of some persons. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned magistrate who inspected the spot has not pre-pared or left any notes of inspection and that as such it is an illegality.although under section 539-b, criminal procedure code a magistrate should record a memorandum of the relevant facts if any observed by him at a local inspection and such memorandum should form part of the record of the case, failure of the magistrate to make the notes of inspection is only an irregularity and where there is ample evidence on record to support the magistrate's conclusion and there had not been failure of justice on account of this irregularity. the high court will not interfere in revision.(vide 1947 mwn 132. dadekula dabakka of kurulappale v. d. padda varadappa of kuriapalle). the evidence on record establishes that there was a disturbance in the street near the temple. the conviction and sentence are correct. the revision petition fails and is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Somasundaram, J.

1. P. Ws. 1 to 3 have sworn that the petitioner gathered a crowd in the public street by abusing certain per-sons and the police. D. Ws. 1 and 2 also admit that there was a crowd in the street opposite to the house of some persons. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the learned Magistrate who inspected the spot has not pre-pared or left any notes of inspection and that as such it is an illegality.

Although under Section 539-B, Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate should record a memorandum of the relevant facts if any observed by him at a local inspection and such memorandum should form part of the record of the case, failure of the Magistrate to make the notes of inspection is only an irregularity and where there is ample evidence on record to support the Magistrate's conclusion and there had not been failure of justice on account of this irregularity. the High Court will not interfere in revision.

(Vide 1947 MWN 132. Dadekula Dabakka of Kurulappale v. D. Padda Varadappa of Kuriapalle). The evidence on record establishes that there was a disturbance in the street near the temple. The conviction and sentence are correct. The Revision petition fails and is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial