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.

Durga Prasad and anr. Vs. Emperor

Durga Prasad and anr. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Aug 03, 1915
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/465836

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 195 - Persuading witnesses to make statements, if offence. - - I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate had before him no basis on which he could pass the order he did.

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durga Prasad and anr.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1915All388(1); 30Ind.Cas.651

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 195 - persuading witnesses to make statements, if offence. - - i am satisfied that the learned magistrate had before him no basis on which he could pass the order he did.george knox, j.1. the district, magistrate of banda in this case appears to have seen police papers of some kind and then and there to have instituted a case under section 195 of the indian penal code against two persons, durga prasad and mohiuddin. the utmost 'that appears from the record is that apparently in the eyes of the police, durga prasad and mohiuddin 'got at' one musammat putia, and persuaded her to make a statement to the effect that she had seen certain persons whom she mentions by name, in the act of committing dacoity on her premises, that they apparently persuaded other persons to make statements to the same effect. assuming for the moment that this is an accurate statement of what did take place, it would not still amount to an offence under section 195 of the indian penal code. there was no giving of false evidence at that time before the learned district magistrate. there was no fabricating of false evidence as defined in section 192 of the indian penal code. the order for the prosecution of these persons was evidently hastily given without due consideration as to whether there was any basis for the charge. i laid down in emperor v. tabarak zaman khan a.w.n. (1907) 288 : 4 a.l.j. 790 : 30 a. 52 : 6 cr. l.j. 396 that in cases of this kind the safer and more proper course is undoubtedly to let the informant bring his witnesses to the court, hear them out, and then pass an order, if the case is considered to be a false one, to the effect that the informer be tried for having instituted a false case. that would have been the proper procedure. in the present case i need not go into the question whether the magistrate who does not observe this procedure is acting without jurisdiction. i am satisfied that the learned magistrate had before him no basis on which he could pass the order he did.2. i, therefore, set aside that order in its entirety. durga prasad and mohiuddin if on bail, the bail bonds will be discharged.

Full Judgment

George Knox, J.

1. The District, Magistrate of Banda in this case appears to have seen Police papers of some kind and then and there to have instituted a case under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code against two persons, Durga Prasad and Mohiuddin. The utmost 'that appears from the record is that apparently in the eyes of the Police, Durga Prasad and Mohiuddin 'got at' one Musammat Putia, and persuaded her to make a statement to the effect that she had seen certain persons whom she mentions by name, in the act of committing dacoity on her premises, that they apparently persuaded other persons to make statements to the same effect. Assuming for the moment that this is an accurate statement of what did take place, it would not still amount to an offence under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code. There was no giving of false evidence at that time before the learned District Magistrate. There was no fabricating of false evidence as defined in Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code. The order for the prosecution of these persons was evidently hastily given without due consideration as to whether there was any basis for the charge. I laid down in Emperor v. Tabarak Zaman Khan A.W.N. (1907) 288 : 4 A.L.J. 790 : 30 A. 52 : 6 Cr. L.J. 396 that in cases of this kind the safer and more proper course is undoubtedly to let the informant bring his witnesses to the Court, hear them out, and then pass an order, if the case is considered to be a false one, to the effect that the informer be tried for having instituted a false case. That would have been the proper procedure. In the present case I need not go into the question whether the Magistrate who does not observe this procedure is acting without jurisdiction. I am satisfied that the learned Magistrate had before him no basis on which he could pass the order he did.

2. I, therefore, set aside that order in its entirety. Durga Prasad and Mohiuddin if on bail, the bail bonds will be discharged.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial