Skip to content
Try for free
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.
See full guide →

In Re: Muthuswami Udayan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 13, 1941
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/811168

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
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

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: Muthuswami Udayan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1941Mad761

Excerpt

- orderlakshmana rao, j.1. the petitioner was the village munsif of chetput and he collected rs. 2-7-0 from p.w. 2 on 15th march 1937 and one rupee from p.w. 3 on 17th april 1937. the amounts were remitted to the treasury on 2lst may and 24th april 1937 respectively before any complaint was received and retention of the amount in the interval would not by itself justify the conviction under section 409, penal code. the conviction of the petitioner under section 409, penal code, is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Lakshmana Rao, J.

1. The petitioner was the Village Munsif of Chetput and he collected Rs. 2-7-0 from P.W. 2 on 15th March 1937 and one rupee from P.W. 3 on 17th April 1937. The amounts were remitted to the treasury on 2lst May and 24th April 1937 respectively before any complaint was received and retention of the amount in the interval would not by itself justify the conviction under Section 409, Penal Code. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 409, Penal Code, is therefore set aside and the fine if levied will be refunded.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Muthuswami Udayan vs Same Subject criminal
criminal

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales