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: Sadayan Chetty and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 13, 1929
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/811672

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 257 - Issue of subpoena to witnesses--Magistrate, whether has discretion to refuse further examination. - - 1. A Magistrate has a large discretion under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if In re Kaile Lakshmayya AIR1927Mad129 goes so far as to hold tha...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Sadayan Chetty and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
124Ind.Cas.606a

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 257 - issue of subpoena to witnesses--magistrate, whether has discretion to refuse further examination. - - 1. a magistrate has a large discretion under section 257 of the criminal procedure code and if in re kaile lakshmayya air1927mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a magistrate has subpoened witnesses under section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, i respectfully disagree. 2. however, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined.orderjackson, j.1. a magistrate has a large discretion under section 257 of the criminal procedure code and if in re kaile lakshmayya : air1927 mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a magistrate has subpoened witnesses under section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, i respectfully disagree.2. however, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined. the sentence is cancelled and the case ordered to be taken up as from when the cross-examination was refused.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. A Magistrate has a large discretion under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code and if In re Kaile Lakshmayya : AIR1927 Mad129 goes so far as to hold that once a Magistrate has subpoened witnesses under Section 257, he is bound to compel their attendance although he is satisfied that it is unnecessary for the purposes of justice, I respectfully disagree.

2. However, in the present case the accused clearly explained that they wanted an adjournment because their Vakil was ill, and as the witnesses were subsequently present there is no apparent reason for not letting them be cross-examined. The sentence is cancelled and the case ordered to be taken up as from when the cross-examination was refused.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial