Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Chuni Lal De and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1944Cal448
AppellantEmperor
RespondentChuni Lal De and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....a matter of opinion. apart from other difficulties pointed out by the learned sessions judge, it is difficult to see how the accused persons could know that an opinion given by a doctor was false. the prosecution under this section was clearly misconceived. it may be that the doctor thought that the injury was slight and gave a false opinion at the instigation of the complainant or the pleader. this would really be a conspiracy to fabricate false evidence, which is quite a different offence. there is nothing on the record, which would justify a prosecution on that ground. i accordingly accept the reference and direct that the proceedings pending against the accused persons be quashed.
Judgment:
ORDER

Henderson, J.

1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dacca recommending that certain proceedings pending against the petitioner and another person under section 198, Penal Code, should be quashed. The other person referred to is the complainant in a certain case. The petitioner is his pleader. A certificate was produced given by a certain doctor to the effect that the injuries on the complainant were severe. This certificate appeared to be so absurd that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had the complainant examined by another doctor who stated that the injuries in question were slight. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is apparently of opinion that the practice of granting certificates of this kind is growing far too common and therefore directed the prosecution of the complainant and his pleader under Section 198, Penal Code, although the chief culprit if there be a culprit, was the doctor.

2. The severity of the injury is a matter of opinion. Apart from other difficulties pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, it is difficult to see how the accused persons could know that an opinion given by a doctor was false. The prosecution under this section was clearly misconceived. It may be that the doctor thought that the injury was slight and gave a false opinion at the instigation of the complainant or the pleader. This would really be a conspiracy to fabricate false evidence, which is quite a different offence. There is nothing on the record, which would justify a prosecution on that ground. I accordingly accept the reference and direct that the proceedings pending against the accused persons be quashed.


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