Skip to content


Girish Myte and anr. Vs. Queen-empress - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR23Cal420
AppellantGirish Myte and anr.
RespondentQueen-empress
Cases ReferredEmpress v. Saminatha I.L.R.
Excerpt:
penal, code (act xlv of 1860), section 213 - screening an offender--criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), sections 367 and 424--contents of judgment. - .....case, merely a suspicion of his having committed some offence. this has been laid down by the madras high court in the case of queen-empress v. saminatha i.l.r. 14 mad. 400, which deals with a case under the cognate-section 214. we therefore make this rule absolute.2. we would add that the judgment of the sessions judge in this case is not in accordance with the law. we call his attention to the provisions of section; 367 of the criminal procedure code.
Judgment:

Ghose and Rampini, JJ.

1. We think that this rule must be made absolute and the accused acquitted and discharged on the ground that there is no evidence in this case that the complainant had committed any offence, and that consequently the accused cannot be held to have rendered themselves answerable to the provisions of Section 213 of the Penal Code. That section would seem to be applicable only when it is proved that the person screened or attempted to be screened from legal punishment has been guilty of an offence and not when there is, as in this case, merely a suspicion of his having committed some offence. This has been laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Queen-Empress v. Saminatha I.L.R. 14 Mad. 400, which deals with a case under the cognate-section 214. We therefore make this rule absolute.

2. We would add that the judgment of the Sessions Judge in this case is not in accordance with the law. We call his attention to the provisions of section; 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code.


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