Ram NaraIn Vs. State

Ram Narain vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Dec 19, 1950

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/463749

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/463749
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Kidwai, J.
Decided On: Dec 19, 1950
Case Number: Criminal Ref. No. 61 of 1950
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal - public servant - Section 195(a) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - complaint of pick pocketing lodged with one station officer - officer forwarded it to railway police officer as crime committed in train - the railway police officer found complaint false and filed complaint against complainant - held, s...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 195; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 182

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Narain

Advocate Shankar Sahai, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate Hammad Farooqi, Addl. Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 195; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 182
Reported In: AIR1952All436

Excerpt

criminal - public servant - section 195(a) of criminal procedure code, 1898 - complaint of pick pocketing lodged with one station officer - officer forwarded it to railway police officer as crime committed in train - the railway police officer found complaint false and filed complaint against complainant - held, station officer of the station where offence was lodged is the public servant in relation to things happened and complaint by police officer is without authority. - - this view is perfectly correct and is fullysupported by the words of the section itself.orderkidwai, j.1. on the 18th of august 1948, ram narain lodged a report at police station beniganj to the effect that his pocket had been picked by one ram bharosey at the railway station at beniganjand that the pick pocket had attempted to escape but was caught. it was further state that the guard of the train banded over the man caught to the station master but, because of the latter's hostility to ram narain, the accused was not searched but was allowed to go. the station officer of beniganj forwarded the report to the station officer g.r.p. hardoi for investigationsince the offence had occurred on the railway.the station officer g.r.p. hardoi came to the conclusion that a false report had been filed by ram narain since his pocket had not been picked.he accordingly filed a complaint under section 182, penal code against ram narain. ram narain was convinced and sentenced to pay a fine of rs. 40. he applied in revision to the sessions judge of hardoi,who has referred the case with the recommendationthat the conviction be set aside. 2. accordingly to the view taken by the sessions judge it was the station officer of beniganj who should have made a complaint in writingunder the provisions of section 195 clause (a), criminal p.c. this view is perfectly correct and is fullysupported by the words of the section itself. the report was made to the station officer, beniganjand the written information was supplied to him.he was the public servant concerned and it wasfor him to make the complaint. the station officer,g.r.p. hardoi had, therefore, no authority to file the complaint. i accordingly accept the reference, set aside the conviction of ram narain and direct that the fine, if paid, shall be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Kidwai, J.

1. On the 18th of August 1948, Ram Narain lodged a report at police station Beniganj to the effect that his pocket had been picked by one Ram Bharosey at the railway station at Beniganjand that the pick pocket had attempted to escape but was caught. It was further state that the guard of the train banded over the man caught to the station master but, because of the latter's hostility to Ram Narain, the accused was not searched but was allowed to go. The Station officer of Beniganj forwarded the report to the Station Officer G.R.P. Hardoi for investigationsince the offence had occurred on the railway.The station officer G.R.P. Hardoi came to the conclusion that a false report had been filed by Ram Narain since his pocket had not been picked.He accordingly filed a complaint under Section 182, penal Code against Ram Narain. Ram Narain was convinced and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40. He applied in revision to the Sessions Judge of Hardoi,who has referred the case with the recommendationthat the conviction be set aside.

2. Accordingly to the view taken by the sessions Judge it was the Station Officer of Beniganj who should have made a complaint in writingunder the provisions of section 195 Clause (a), Criminal P.C. This view is perfectly correct and is fullysupported by the words of the section itself. The report was made to the station Officer, Beniganjand the written information was supplied to him.He was the public servant concerned and it wasfor him to make the complaint. The Station Officer,G.R.P. Hardoi had, therefore, no authority to file the complaint. I accordingly accept the reference, set aside the conviction of Ram Narain and direct that the fine, if paid, shall be refunded.

Same Parties Ram Narain vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Kidwai, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 195; Indi...

Criminal