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

1950 Supreme(Mad) 118

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. Justice Somasundaram.
Korrapaty Appayya
Versus
Talla Rama Subbayya
Cr.R.C. No. 779 of 1949. (Cr.R.P. No. 717 of 1949.)
Decided On : 17 March 1950

Advocates:
P. Ramakriskna for Petitioner.
K. Venkataratnam for Respondent.
The Public Prosecutor (V.L. Ethiraj) or behalf of the State.

Legality of conviction on disclosure of instructions of advocate.

Headnote:Evidence Act, 1872-Section 126 -Legality of conviction awarded on disclosure of instructions to advocate.

Order

The charge on which the petitioner is convicted is that he gave instructions to P.W.6, the lawyer, who put certain questions which were defamatory. P.W.6 having acted as lawyer to the petitioner is debarred under section 126 of the Evidence Act to disclose the instructions given to him. Apart from the section which is clear on the point, it is also covered by the judgment of Burn, J., in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Emperor1. The only other evidence is that given by P.W.4. But that does not prove the prosecution case. The conviction by the learned Additional Magistrate on the evidence of the lawyer P.W.6 is unsustainable. It is set aside and the accused acquitted. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.

V.S. ----- Petition allowed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 Back to top