Skip to content


Algoo Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All196; 57Ind.Cas.96
AppellantAlgoo Lal
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 182 - report at police station of non-cognizable offence--report untrue--offence. - .....is a petition in revision from an appellate order of the sessions judge of gorakhpur. the learned sessions judge has gone into the facts of the somewhat trumpery case with all his usual thoroughness and it would seem that he took the trouble to summon to his own court and himself examine two or three of the most important witnesses in the case. the change against the appellant, algoo lal, is that he abetted one musammat janakbarta in making a report at a police station which contains statements of fact known to be untrue both by musammat janakbarta and algoo lal himself, with intent that injury should be caused to some third person. the conclusion i have come to is that the learned sessions judge is very probably right in the conclusion he has come to as to the facts. but that there is.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. This is a petition in revision from an appellate order of the Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. The learned Sessions Judge has gone into the facts of the somewhat trumpery case with all his usual thoroughness and it would seem that he took the trouble to summon to his own Court and himself examine two or three of the most important witnesses in the case. The change against the appellant, Algoo Lal, is that he abetted one Musammat Janakbarta in making a report at a Police Station which contains statements of fact known to be untrue both by Musammat Janakbarta and Algoo Lal himself, with intent that injury should be caused to some third person. The conclusion I have come to is that the learned Sessions Judge is very probably right in the conclusion he has come to as to the facts. But that there is an absence, not merely of direct but of. circumstantial evidence, such as fairly to warrant an inference unfavourable to the accused person as to the motive which the prosecution suggested for the making of the report. I am further of opinion that the making of this report under the circumstances--the said report, alleging the disappearance of a bullock, not being the report of a cognizable offence and not in itself calling for any action on the part of the Police Officer to whom it was made--falls short of fulfilling the conditions necessary to justify a conviction under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. It is possible that the making of this report was the first step in a proposed course of action, the ultimate object of which was the bringing of a false charge against one Sumeshar. I cannot say that there seems to me to be legal evidence warranting an affirmative finding that this was so, but even supposing it was, I think the act went no further than preparation for the commission of a more serious offence. Except in the case of a few offences of a vary special nature, the Indian Penal Code does not recognize preparation for committing an offence as punishable, unless something is done amounting to an actual attempt. I do not think this conviction can be sustained. I set it aside accordingly and acquit Algoo Lal of the offence charged. He has already been released on bail so that it is only necessary for me to order that his surety be discharged. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.


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