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: Kolli Appiah and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 18, 1912
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/821922

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
Trusts and Societies

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 476 - Order passed before cross-examination of prosecution, witnesses--illegality. -

Key legal issue
Trusts and Societies

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Kolli Appiah and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
13Ind.Cas.832

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 476 - order passed before cross-examination of prosecution, witnesses--illegality. - orderralph benson, j.1. the public prosecutor conceded that the magistrate's order under section 473, criminal procedure code, was made before the witnesses for the prosecution had been cross-examined on their evidence that the search list was a 'false one' and before the defence had any opportunity to show that the search list was not a false one. this action was obviously premature and wrong. cross-examination might have shown that the prosecution evidence was untrustworthy, or its truth might have been disproved by other evidence.2. again, the magistrate's order is open to objection in that it does not specify or even indicate in any way, how or in what respect the search list was 'a false' one. the magistrate's order under section 476 is, for these reasons, improper and is set aside.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Ralph Benson, J.

1. The Public Prosecutor conceded that the Magistrate's order under Section 473, Criminal Procedure Code, was made before the witnesses for the prosecution had been cross-examined on their evidence that the search list was a 'false one' and before the defence had any opportunity to show that the search list was not a false one. This action was obviously premature and wrong. Cross-examination might have shown that the prosecution evidence was untrustworthy, or its truth might have been disproved by other evidence.

2. Again, the Magistrate's order is open to objection in that it does not specify or even indicate in any way, how or in what respect the search list was 'a false' one. The Magistrate's order under Section 476 is, for these reasons, improper and is set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial