Skip to content


In Re: Somayajulu Ramamurthi-counter - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.251
AppellantIn Re: Somayajulu Ramamurthi-counter
Excerpt:
legal practitioners act (xviii of 1879), section 36 - tout--legal evidence necessary. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the proviso to article 309 of the constitution., the rule is not assailed on the ground of lack of.....1. under section 36 of the legal practitioners act, i think there should be legal evidence that the individual in question is a tout or that he is reported such and that a mere report of the bar association will not do. the order is set aside and remanded to lower court for disposal according of law.
Judgment:

1. Under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act, I think there should be legal evidence that the individual in question is a tout or that he is reported such and that a mere report of the Bar Association will Not do. The order is set aside and remanded to lower Court for disposal according of law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //