SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Mad) 70

KRISHNASWAMY REDDY
T. Subbiah, (Accused) – Appellant
Versus
S. K. D. Ramaswamy Nadar, (Complainant) – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Ramaswami, for Petitioner; Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State; A. Shanmughavel, for the Complainant.

Judgement

ORDER :- This revision petition has been filed by the accused in Crime No. 4 of 1968, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sriviliputur, directing him to appear on 27-11-1968 for taking his specimen signature and handwriting for the purpose of investigation.

2. The relevant facts necessary for the appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioner are briefly as follows;

3. The petitioner was arrested by the Rajapalayam Police in connection with certain offences of cheating, forgery etc., alleged to have been

committed by him. He was subsequently released on bail. While the investigation was pending, the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram, filed a memo on 21-9-1968 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Srivilliputtur, requesting him to direct the petitioner to give his specimen handwriting and affix his specimen signature both in ink and pencil for the purpose of further investigation in the matter. On that memo, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner asking him to appear on 5-10-1968 and give his specimen handwriting and signature for the purpose of





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. There are no clear statements such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized" in the summaries. However, some cases mention that certain decisions or views were not followed or distinguished, which suggests they may have been questioned or not ultimately adopted as binding law. Without explicit overruled or reversed language, none can be definitively categorized as bad law based solely on this information.

Followed / Cited Favorably:

Pazhamaruthai @ Marudamathu VS M. Subramaniam - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 450 and Pazhamaruthai @ Marudamathu VS M. Subramaniam - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 449: These references mention reliance on decisions, including "Subbiah Chetti v." and "Subbiah," indicating that these decisions are considered supportive or authoritative in subsequent discussions.

Raj Kumar VS State - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 3085: References the Madras High Court decision in T. Subbiah v. S.K.D. Ramaswamy Nadar and appears to treat it as a relevant authority.

Raj Kumar VS State - Crimes (2012): Discusses the Madras High Court decision in T. Subbiah v. S.K.D., indicating recognition of its legal standing.

Distinguished / Not Followed:

Dharamvir Singh VS State - 1974 0 Supreme(P&H) 152: Mentions that Gulzar Khan's case was "noticed but not followed," explicitly indicating that this case was distinguished and not adopted as binding.

PALI RAM VS STATE OF DELHI - 1975 0 Supreme(Del) 24, Rakesh Gupta VS State of Rajasthan - 1979 0 Supreme(Raj) 41, Natvarlal Amarshibhai Devani VS State Of Gujarat - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 224, Faizal K. V. , S/o. Late K. V. Beerankutty VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 485: These references discuss aspects of the case or related legal principles but do not explicitly state that the case was overruled or criticized. They seem to treat the case as part of legal discussion or analysis.

Uncertain / Ambiguous:

Several references (Priti Ranjan Ghosh VS State - 1972 0 Supreme(Cal) 241, Mukhtiar Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 194, Ashok Kumar @ Govind VS State - 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 408, N. Mani VS State by Deputy Superintendent of Police CBCID - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3387) mention the case or its principles but do not clarify whether it was followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled. The context suggests ongoing legal discussion rather than definitive treatment.

Priti Ranjan Ghosh VS State - 1972 0 Supreme(Cal) 241: The summary describes the case but does not specify how it was treated in subsequent rulings.

Mukhtiar Singh VS State Of Punjab - 1997 0 Supreme(P&H) 194, Ashok Kumar @ Govind VS State - 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 408, N. Mani VS State by Deputy Superintendent of Police CBCID - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3387: These mention the case in passing or in relation to evidence and legal principles but lack clear treatment language.

Cases referencing the case in relation to other legal principles or evidence (e.g., tape recordings, statements) do not clarify their judicial standing or treatment.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top