Skip to content


Balasundaram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Mad191
AppellantBalasundaram
Excerpt:
- orderreilly, j.1. the information given in the charge sheet in this case is not very full; but i cannot say that it does not comply with the provisions of section 173, criminal p.c. the contention that section requires that an abstract of the evidence to be given by each of the witnesses mentioned should be entered in the report of charge sheet appears to me unsound. nor is there in my opinion anything in the suggestion that this form of charge sheet, prescribed by g.o. no. 3,487 law (general), dated 16th october 1928, and published in the port st. george gazette dated 23rd october 1928, could not legally be prescribed under section 173, criminal p.c., because it requires less details to be given than were required in the form previously prescribed. this petition is dismissed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Reilly, J.

1. The information given in the charge sheet in this case is not very full; but I cannot say that it does not comply with the provisions of Section 173, Criminal P.C. The contention that section requires that an abstract of the evidence to be given by each of the witnesses mentioned should be entered in the report of charge sheet appears to me unsound. Nor is there in my opinion anything in the suggestion that this form of charge sheet, prescribed by G.O. No. 3,487 Law (General), dated 16th October 1928, and published in the Port St. George Gazette dated 23rd October 1928, could not legally be prescribed under Section 173, Criminal P.C., because it requires less details to be given than were required in the form previously prescribed. This petition is dismissed.


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