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: Chanlet

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 24, 1924
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/814089

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
Property

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Chanlet

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925Mad424; 85Ind.Cas.42

Excerpt

- orderspencer, og.c.j.1. there is no objection whatever to the accused being granted a copy of the statements made by witnesses at the inquest inquiry; and it the record of the inquest proceedings was in the custody of the court, the magistrate should have allowed certified copies to be given upon the application of the accused's vakil. if the inquest report was not in the court, the magistrate had power under section 94 of the code of criminal procedure, to call for it to be produced by the police.2. the chief presidency magistrate will take back the application and pass the necessary orders.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Spencer, Og.C.J.

1. There is no objection whatever to the accused being granted a copy of the statements made by witnesses at the inquest inquiry; and it the record of the inquest proceedings was in the custody of the Court, the Magistrate should have allowed certified copies to be given upon the application of the accused's Vakil. If the inquest report was not in the Court, the Magistrate had power under Section 94 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for it to be produced by the Police.

2. The Chief Presidency Magistrate will take back the application and pass the necessary orders.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Chanlet vs Same Subject Property
Property

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