Skip to content


In Re: Keshav Lakshman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR1Bom175
AppellantIn Re: Keshav Lakshman
Excerpt:
award of compensation - the code of criminal procedure (act x of 1872), section 209--complainant. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article.....1. the court thinks that the subordinate judge, and not the karkun, keshav, must be regarded as the complainant in the proceedings before the magistrate. the subordinate judge acted judicially, and, on that ground, would not be subject to the penalty provided in section 209 of the criminal procedure code. the karkun, if he made a false report to the subordinate judge, or gave false evidence before the magistrate, is punishable otherwise; but, not being the complainant, he also is not liable to have the payment of compensation awarded against him under section 209 of the criminal procedure code.2. the court reverses the order of the magistrate, which directed that keshav lakshman should pay rs. 5 to aba valad krishna as compensation.
Judgment:

1. The Court thinks that the Subordinate Judge, and not the karkun, Keshav, must be regarded as the complainant in the proceedings before the Magistrate. The Subordinate Judge acted judicially, and, on that ground, would not be subject to the penalty provided in Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The karkun, if he made a false report to the Subordinate Judge, or gave false evidence before the Magistrate, is punishable otherwise; but, not being the complainant, he also is not liable to have the payment of compensation awarded against him under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The Court reverses the order of the Magistrate, which directed that Keshav Lakshman should pay Rs. 5 to Aba valad Krishna as compensation.


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