[1] We are disposed to agree with the Head Assistant Magistrate that the facts alleged do not amount to an offence tinder Section 211, Indian Penal Code; but if the Magistrate believed as he apparently did believe, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate should have framed a charge of an offence punishable under Section 182(a) of the Indian Penal Code, as the facts clearly amount to an offence under that section, read it must be in connection with the obligation imposed on the Village Magistrate by Section 45(c), Criminal Procedure Code.
[2] The case of the Queen v. Periannan 4 M. 241 is not an authority against this view, since in that case the learned Judges only held that no offence punishable under Section 182(6) was committed. We set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct him to make further inquiry into the alleged offence under Section 182(a) of the Indian Penal Code.
Public Prosecutor v. Thavaslandi Thevan
Public Prosecutor v. Thavaslandi Thevan
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
No. | 11-03-1903
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BENSON
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASHYAM IYENGAR
Eq Citations
- 4 IND. CAS. 1039
- LQ/MadHC/1903/26
Head Note
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - S. 45(c) — Magistrate's duty under — If Magistrate believed evidence of prosecution witnesses, he should have framed a charge of an offence punishable under S. 182(a) IPC read with S. 45(c), Cr. P. C.
