Umrao Singh Vs. Emperor

Umrao Singh vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 09, 1909

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/473703

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/473703
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Karamat Husain, J.
Decided On: Feb 09, 1909
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 182 - Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 195(1)--False report to police--Police reporting for action under Section 182--Complaint. - - This explanation satisfied the learned Sessions Judge and he, therefore, rejected the application for revision.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umrao Singh

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: 2Ind.Cas.200

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 182 - criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 195(1)--false report to police--police reporting for action under section 182--complaint. - - this explanation satisfied the learned sessions judge and he, therefore, rejected the application for revision......under section 182 of the indian penal code. the assistant superintendent of police forwarded the report to the sub- divisional magistrate remarking that action need be taken. the magistrate treated the report as a complaint and proceeding under section 195 of the code of criminal procedure, took cognizance of the alleged offence under section 109 read with section 182 of the indian penal code. umrao singh applied in revision to the learned sessions judge who called on the sub-divisional magistrate to report. the report of the sub-divisional magistrate was to the effect that the report of the sub-inspector at the instance of the assistant superintendent of police was read as a complaint and as such it was considered to justify the magistrate under section 195 (1) of the criminal procedure code in taking cognizance of that offence against both the persons named in the body of the report. this explanation satisfied the learned sessions judge and he, therefore, rejected the application for revision. umrao singh now applies to this court for revision on the ground that the sub-divisional magistrate had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as (1) there was no complaint before him and there was no sanction by a public servant concerned or some public servant to whom he was subordinate, and (2) the applicant could not be prosecuted under section 182 of the indian penal code, for he did not report. i am of opinion that under the provisions of section 195 (1) of the code of criminal procedure, the sub-divisional magistrate was not justified in treating the report of the sub-inspector submitted to the assistant superintendent of police as a complaint and taking cognizance of the alleged offence against umrao singh. besides, umrao singh himself did not report at the thana. he, therefore, could not have committed the offence under section 182 of the indian penal code. i, therefore, allow the application and set aside the order of the sub-divisional magistrate, dated the 6th of june,.....

Full Judgment

Karamat Husain, J.

1. Musammat Saidu reported at the thana of Madaura that one Raghu Kurmi had stolen a bullock. At the time of the report Umrao Singh applicant was with Saidu. The report turned out to be false and the Sub-Inspector of Madaura submitted a report to the Assistant Superintendent of Police asking that action be taken against Umrao Singh under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The Assistant Superintendent of Police forwarded the report to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate remarking that action need be taken. The Magistrate treated the report as a complaint and proceeding under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, took cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 109 read with Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Umrao Singh applied in revision to the learned Sessions Judge who called on the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to report. The report of the Sub-divisional Magistrate was to the effect that the report of the Sub-Inspector at the instance of the Assistant Superintendent of Police was read as a complaint and as such it was considered to justify the Magistrate under Section 195 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code in taking cognizance of that offence against both the persons named in the body of the report. This explanation satisfied the learned Sessions Judge and he, therefore, rejected the application for revision. Umrao Singh now applies to this Court for revision on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as (1) there was no complaint before him and there was no sanction by a public servant concerned or some public servant to whom he was subordinate, and (2) the applicant could not be prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, for he did not report. I am of opinion that under the provisions of Section 195 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was not justified in treating the report of the Sub-Inspector submitted to the Assistant Superintendent of Police as a complaint and taking cognizance of the alleged offence against Umrao Singh. Besides, Umrao Singh himself did not report at the thana. He, therefore, could not have committed the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, allow the application and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, dated the 6th of June, 1908.

Same Parties Umrao Singh vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Karamat Husain, J.

Criminal