Skip to content


Tofazel HooseIn Vs. H.C. Hunt - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in128Ind.Cas.208
AppellantTofazel Hoosein
RespondentH.C. Hunt
Cases ReferredKarim Baksh v. Queen
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 182 and 211 - false charge to police of cognizable offence--summary trial of complainant under section 182, legality of. - .....the petitioner in this case is found guilty in a summary trial on a charge under a. 132, indian penal code, and was sentenced to pay a fine of rs 200, the charge against him was that he gave false information to a certain public servant, the superintendent of police that he and his mother had been unlawfully confined by a certain police officer and that money was extorted wrongly from them. he has moved this court and has obtained this rule.2. the only ground which it is necessary for me to deal with is ground no 3, namely, that the offence falls under section 211, indian penal code, and, therefore, not triable summarily. mr. bhuttacharya who appeals for the crown admits himself that the case is an important one and that he would prefer that the accused should be, under the ordinary.....
Judgment:

Arthur Herbert Cuming, J.

1. The petitioner in this case is found guilty in a summary trial on a charge under a. 132, Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 200, The charge against him was that he gave false information to a certain public servant, the Superintendent of Police that he and his mother had been unlawfully confined by a certain Police officer and that money was extorted wrongly from them. He has moved this Court and has obtained this Rule.

2. The only ground which it is necessary for me to deal with is ground No 3, namely, that the offence falls under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, not triable summarily. Mr. Bhuttacharya who appeals for the Crown admits himself that the case is an important one and that he would prefer that the accused should be, under the ordinary procedure, tried on a charge under Section 211. There is, I think, no question but that the charge against the petitioner does fall under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. This point was decided by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Karim Baksh v. Queen-Empress 17 C. 574 (F.B.) where it was held that a person who sets the criminal law in motion by making a false charge to the Police of a cognizable offence institutes criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 211, Indian Penal Code. In this case the allegation against the petitioner is that he has made a false report to Mr. Hunt, the Superintendent of Police that certain persons had wrongfully confined him and his mother. Now, the wrongful confinement of the petitioner's mother would fall under Section 342, Indian Penal Code. Section 342 admittedly is a cognizable offence. Therefore it is clear that the present charge against the accused does fall under Section 211 and that, therefore, he should not have been tried summarily.

3. I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentences against the accused and order that the petitioner should be re tried under. Section 211, Indian Penal Code, or any other section that may be applicable.

4. In this view it is unnecessary to deal with the other grounds on which also the Rule was issued. The Rule is accordingly made absolute. The fine if already paid will be refunded.


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