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: Mir Hyder Saheb

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 12, 1915
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/820897

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Sections 109, 352 - Inducing others to leat without taking part--Abetment. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Mir Hyder Saheb

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1916Mad1038(1); 29Ind.Cas.88

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 109, 352 - inducing others to leat without taking part--abetment. - orderkumaraswami sastri, j.1. all that appears from the evidence is that 2nd accused, who was sitting on the pial, said 'beat.' i am of opinion that the 2nd accused on the evidence can only be convicted of abetment of an offence under section 352 of the indian penal code. the particular intention required to be proved before a conviction under section 353 or 355 can be sustained has not been made out. i convict the accused of abetment of an offence under section 352 and alter the sentence into one of imprisonment for the period he has already undergone and a fine of rs. 100. as the fine has been paid, it is not necessary to fix any imprisonment in default.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. All that appears from the evidence is that 2nd accused, who was sitting on the pial, said 'beat.' I am of opinion that the 2nd accused on the evidence can only be convicted of abetment of an offence under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code. The particular intention required to be proved before a conviction under Section 353 or 355 can be sustained has not been made out. I convict the accused of abetment of an offence under Section 352 and alter the sentence into one of imprisonment for the period he has already undergone and a fine of Rs. 100. As the fine has been paid, it is not necessary to fix any imprisonment in default.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Mir Hyder Saheb vs Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
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