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: Abdur Shukur Sahib

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 05, 1942
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/809806

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: Abdur Shukur Sahib

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1943Mad500; (1943)1MLJ409

Excerpt

- orderhorwill, j.1. the accused was charged by the police with preferring a false and frivolous charge against police officials at polur.2. the accused sent a petition containing various allegations, which were subsequently found to be false, to the district superintendent of police. his letter was posted at polur and apparently opened by the district superintendent of police at vellore. the post office, therefore, acted as the agent of the accused in carrying this letter to the district superintendent of police at north arcot; and the effect was the same as if the accused had handed over the letter in person to the district superintendent of police at vellore. the false or frivolous charge was therefore made at vellore and not at polur. it therefore follows that the magistrate having jurisdiction would be the magistrate at vellore.3. the petition is therefore allowed and the magistrate ordered to return the charge-sheet to be presented to the magistrate having jurisdiction.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Horwill, J.

1. The accused was charged by the police with preferring a false and frivolous charge against police officials at Polur.

2. The accused sent a petition containing various allegations, which were subsequently found to be false, to the District Superintendent of Police. His letter was posted at Polur and apparently opened by the District Superintendent of Police at Vellore. The Post Office, therefore, acted as the agent of the accused in carrying this letter to the District Superintendent of Police at North Arcot; and the effect was the same as if the accused had handed over the letter in person to the District Superintendent of Police at Vellore. The false or frivolous charge was therefore made at Vellore and not at Polur. It therefore follows that the Magistrate having jurisdiction would be the Magistrate at Vellore.

3. The petition is therefore allowed and the Magistrate ordered to return the charge-sheet to be presented to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial