Skip to content


Chakrapani Aiyangar Vs. the King Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1902)12MLJ408
AppellantChakrapani Aiyangar
RespondentThe King Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....a view to a subsequent prosecution and trial for an offence is a sentence or order passed 'in a criminal trial.' we, therefore, proceed to hear the appeal.2. on the merits we consider that the sanction granted 'by the sessions judge ought to be revoked, as there is no evidence to prove the falsity of the appellant's statements except that of srinivasaraghavachari, whose evidence was treated as untrustworthy by the bench which heard the referred trial no. 72 of 1901, the members of which are also on this bench. the sessions judge is in error in supposing that the evidence of the village magistrate contradicts that of the appellant. the appellant's statement is made with reference to a different occasion from that to which the village magistrate speaks, and, therefore; they are not.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. We consider that this appeal lies under Section 15 of the Letters Patent, as it is impossible to hold that an order passed under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to a subsequent prosecution and trial for an offence is a sentence or order passed 'in a criminal trial.' We, therefore, proceed to hear the appeal.

2. On the merits we consider that the sanction granted 'by the Sessions Judge ought to be revoked, as there is no evidence to prove the falsity of the appellant's statements except that of Srinivasaraghavachari, whose evidence was treated as untrustworthy by the Bench which heard the Referred Trial No. 72 of 1901, the members of which are also on this Bench. The Sessions Judge is in error in supposing that the evidence of the Village Magistrate contradicts that of the appellant. The appellant's statement is made with reference to a different occasion from that to which the Village Magistrate speaks, and, therefore; they are not contradictory of each other. Srinivasaraghavachari may have made different statements to these persons on the two different occasions. There is, therefore, no probability of securing the appellant's conviction even if sanction is granted, and we, therefore, set aside the sanction accorded by the Sessions Judge.


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