Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kauleshar Ahir Vs. Emperor

Kauleshar Ahir vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 01, 1942
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/450808

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kauleshar Ahir

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1943All96

Excerpt

- orderallsop, j.1. section 182, penal code, says nothing about cognizable or non-cognizable offences or anything of the kind. the only question is whether the report is false and whether it was calculated to induce the public officer to do something or omit something which he ought not to have done or omitted. in this case the finding is that the report of the loss of the cattle was false and that it was made with the object of diverting the attention of the sub-inspector from a charge against the applicant. moreover, the finding is that the report induced the sub-inspector to register a case of suspected cattle theft and make an investigation which he ought not to have made if he had known the report to have been false. i see no reason to interfere. the reference is rejected. the papers may be returned to the court below.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Allsop, J.

1. Section 182, Penal Code, says nothing about cognizable or non-cognizable offences or anything of the kind. The only question is whether the report is false and whether it was calculated to induce the public officer to do something or omit something which he ought not to have done or omitted. In this case the finding is that the report of the loss of the cattle was false and that it was made with the object of diverting the attention of the sub-inspector from a charge against the applicant. Moreover, the finding is that the report induced the sub-inspector to register a case of suspected cattle theft and make an investigation which he ought not to have made if he had known the report to have been false. I see no reason to interfere. The reference is rejected. The papers may be returned to the Court below.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial