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.

Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Thandava Chettiar and anr.

Subramaniam Chettiar vs Thandava Chettiar and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 21, 1962
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/809817

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.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subramaniam Chettiar

Respondent

Thandava Chettiar and anr.

Legal References

Reported In
1963CriLJ370; (1963)IMLJ10

Excerpt

- ordersadasivam, j.1. the statement of a person recorded under section 162 criminal procedure code cannot be used to contradict that person under section 145 of the indian evidence act when he is called as a defence witness. the proviso to section 162 of the criminal procedure code can be invoked only in the case of prosecution witnesses and not in the case of defence witnesses. the order of the lower court is correct. the criminal revision petition is therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sadasivam, J.

1. The statement of a person recorded under Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code cannot be used to contradict that person under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act when he is called as a defence witness. The proviso to Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked only in the case of prosecution witnesses and not in the case of defence witnesses. The order of the lower Court is correct. The criminal revision petition is therefore dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial