Skip to content


Hukam Singh Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All474
AppellantHukam Singh
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- - this is not a legal subpoena, failure to comply with which can be punished under section 174. if any authority other than the language of the section itself is needed for this proposition it may be found in the case of empress v......under section 174. if any authority other than the language of the section itself is needed for this proposition it may be found in the case of empress v. ram saran (1883) 5 all 7. as the subpoena did not require the accused to attend, at a definite place, i set aside the orders of the courts below and acquit the accused. the fine, if paid, will he refunded.
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code of disobeying a subpoena requiring him to attend before the Sub-Inspector in a police inquiry. Section 174 prescribes a punishment for any person who being legally bound to attend at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice order or proclamation issued by a legally competent public servant, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time. The subpoena which was issued to the applicant as issued in this case did not require him to attend at a certain place. It called on him to attend either at Sahail thana or wherever the inspecting officer might happen to be. This is not a legal subpoena, failure to comply with which can be punished under Section 174. If any authority other than the language of the section itself is needed for this proposition it may be found in the case of Empress v. Ram Saran (1883) 5 All 7. As the subpoena did not require the accused to attend, at a definite place, I set aside the orders of the Courts below and acquit the accused. The fine, if paid, will he refunded.


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