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: Kukati Narasa Reddi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 1914
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/815686

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
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 481(2), 537 - Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 228--Offence--Record must show stage of interruption--Evidence --Intention. -

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Kukati Narasa Reddi

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1915Mad330(2); 25Ind.Cas.629

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 481(2), 537 - penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 228--offence--record must show stage of interruption--evidence --intention. - ordermiller, j.1. the district munsif should have complied with the provisions of section 481 (2)-of the code of criminal procedure, and though his failure to do so seems to be only an irregularity which may be cured by section 537 of the code, yet, in the present case, there is no evidence on the record from which it can be gathered what was the judicial proceeding or what was the stage of that proceeding which was interrupted.2. moreover, it seems very doubtful whether the evidence established the fact that the noise was intended to be an interruption of the court.3. i think, in the circumstances, the sessions judge's order cannot be said to be clearly wrong or to require interference.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Miller, J.

1. The District Munsif should have complied with the provisions of Section 481 (2)-of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and though his failure to do so seems to be only an irregularity which may be cured by Section 537 of the Code, yet, in the present case, there is no evidence on the record from which it can be gathered what was the judicial proceeding or what was the stage of that proceeding which was interrupted.

2. Moreover, it seems very doubtful whether the evidence established the fact that the noise was intended to be an interruption of the Court.

3. I think, in the circumstances, the Sessions Judge's order cannot be said to be clearly wrong or to require interference.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial