Skip to content


Fakir Mohideen and Vs. F. Hartnett - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.547a
AppellantFakir Mohideen and ;kadir Murah
RespondentF. Hartnett
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195 - penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 193--perjury--sanction to prosecute--contradictory statements made before police officer and magistrate--sanction by magistrate in respect of one of such statements. - - 7. no authority has been quoted before us to show that such a sanction is not sufficient to meet the requirements of section 195, criminal procedure code, in a case like the present. 125 of 1908. 9. for the like reasons as are recorded above we dismiss this petition also......code, as amended by act v of 1887, and that on 6th july last he made another statement to the chief presidency magistrate in the course of an enquiry into a certain case and that the two statements are so contradictory that the accused must necessarily be guilty of an offence under section 193, indian penal code, in respect of one or other of the statements.3. the chief presidency magistrate gave sanction for the prosecution on the above complaint. we arc asked to say that the sentence is invalid and to revoke it.4. we do not find any ground for interference.5. so far as the complaint is that the statement before the police officer is or may be false, no sanction is required; and any sanction given by the magistrate may be treated as surplusage.6. so far as the complaint is that the.....
Judgment:

1. In Criminal M.P. 250 of 1908.

2. The complaint against the accused is that on the 11th June last, the accused made a certain statement to the Police Officer making an investigation under Section 174, Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Act V of 1887, and that on 6th July last he made another statement to the Chief Presidency Magistrate in the course of an enquiry into a certain case and that the two statements are so contradictory that the accused must necessarily be guilty of an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, in respect of one or other of the statements.

3. The Chief Presidency Magistrate gave sanction for the prosecution on the above complaint. We arc asked to say that the sentence is invalid and to revoke it.

4. We do not find any ground for interference.

5. So far as the complaint is that the statement before the Police Officer is or may be false, no sanction is required; and any sanction given by the Magistrate may be treated as surplusage.

6. So far as the complaint is that the statement before the Magistrate is or may be false, the Chief Presidency Magistrate has given sanction.

7. No authority has been quoted before us to show that such a sanction is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, in a case like the present. We think it is sufficient and dismiss the petition.

8. In Criminal M.P. No. 125 of 1908.

9. For the like reasons as are recorded above we dismiss this petition also.


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