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

1957 Supreme(Mad) 307

SOMASUNDARAM
Public Prosecutor – Appellant
Versus
C. S. Pachiappa Mudaliar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
The Public Prosecutor, for the State; R. Rajagopala Iyer and R. Subramania Iyer, for Respondents.

Judgement

ORDER: These are revisions against the order passed by the IIIrd Presidency Magistrate under the following circumstances. The accused is prosecuted for an offence under S. 409, I. P. C. The prosecution in compliance with the provisions of S. 173, Cr. P. C. furnished in the first instance certain documents, on which they proposed to rely. On the basis of those documents, after questioning the accused, charges were framed.

Subsequently the prosecution felt the need to furnish some more documents on which they were going to rely. They supplied those documents to the accused, but the accused refused to receive the same. Thereafter, the prosecution filed an application before the Court asking the Court to direct the accused to receive these documents. The application is an extraordinary one. I can understand an application by the prosecution for permission to tender those documents; but an application to compel the accused to receive those documents is something which I have not heard of.

But the most relevant documents both from the point of view of the prosecution as well as of the defence, even if tendered by the prosecution to the advantage of the accused, can well be refused





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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top