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: Mantri Kamaraju

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 23, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/810395

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 240 - the section applies to separate charges of distinct offences tried separately--Stay of trial. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Mantri Kamaraju

Legal References

Cases Referred
Queen v. Sadia Unrep. Cr. Cas. Bom.
Reported In
2Ind.Cas.128

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 240 - the section applies to separate charges of distinct offences tried separately--stay of trial. - orderralph benson, j.1. the order of the sessions judge staying the trial of sessions cases nos. 47 to 49 of 1908, pending appeal, if any, by the accused against the conviction in sessions cases nos. 44 to 46 of 1908 is not warranted by section 240 of the criminal procedure code, under which it purports to have been made.2. the opening words of that section make it clear that it is only applicable to joinder of charges in the same case, not to separate charges of distinct offences tried separately as in the present case. this was ruled in the unreported case queen v. sadia unrep. cr. cas. bom. p. 3623. it may be observed that the sessions judge might have attained the desired object by adjourning the trial under section 344, criminal procedure code, pending appeal, if any, in the other cases and the result thereof. under section 494, criminal procedure code, the public prosecutor, might, with the consent of the court, have withdrawn from the prosecution and may still do so, if so advised.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Ralph Benson, J.

1. The order of the Sessions Judge staying the trial of Sessions Cases Nos. 47 to 49 of 1908, pending appeal, if any, by the accused against the conviction in Sessions Cases Nos. 44 to 46 of 1908 is not warranted by Section 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which it purports to have been made.

2. The opening words of that section make it clear that it is only applicable to joinder of charges in the same case, not to separate charges of distinct offences tried separately as in the present case. This was ruled in the unreported case Queen v. Sadia Unrep. Cr. Cas. Bom. p. 362

3. It may be observed that the Sessions Judge might have attained the desired object by adjourning the trial under Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code, pending appeal, if any, in the other cases and the result thereof. Under Section 494, Criminal Procedure Code, the Public Prosecutor, might, with the consent of the Court, have withdrawn from the prosecution and may still do so, if so advised.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial