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.

T.N. Chadha Vs. Emperor

T.N. Chadha vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jun 30, 1916
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/480492

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
MRTP

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 435 - Revision--High Court, power of--Perjury--Order to witness to sho cause against prosecution for perjury, whether can he set aside. - - The statement in respect of which it is suggested that the offence of giving false evidence was committed was qualified in cro...

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

T.N. Chadha

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1917All371(1); 36Ind.Cas.878

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 435 - revision--high court, power of--perjury--order to witness to sho cause against prosecution for perjury, whether can he set aside. - - the statement in respect of which it is suggested that the offence of giving false evidence was committed was qualified in cross-examination by an admission that the deponent was not quite sure, and was only speaking to the best of his recollection and belief......found guilty at the trial in which the present applicant's evidence was given, was also pending before this court for disposal. after having gone through the record in connection with the application of par-manand and others, i am in a position to say without hesitation that no good purpose would be served by the further continuance of the proceedings initiated by the order complained of. the statement in respect of which it is suggested that the offence of giving false evidence was committed was qualified in cross-examination by an admission that the deponent was not quite sure, and was only speaking to the best of his recollection and belief. according to the english practice he should then have been asked whether he was prepared to swear to the fact as true. it is obvious from his answers that he would have declined to do so. if it was any part of the case for the prosecution that the present applicant was shielding the three accused persons from justice, his examination before the court, and more particularly his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, should have been conducted upon different lines. as the record stands, materials for a successful prosecution for perjury are obviously lacking. following the precedent set in the reported case already referred to, i discharge the magistrate's order calling upon the petitioner, mr. t.n. chadha, to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for an offence under section 193 of the indian penal code.

Full Judgment

Piggott, J.

1. This is an application asking this Court to interfere with an order of the District Magistrate of Allahabad calling upon the applicant to show cause why his prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code should not be directed. For obvious reasons it is a very unusual thing for this Court to interfere in such a matter at so early a stage; but precedent can be shown for the exercise of this Court's jurisdiction, vide Queen-Empress v. lagan Singh A.W.N. (1892) 102 Presumably this application was admitted because a connected application, by the three persons found guilty at the trial in which the present applicant's evidence was given, was also pending before this Court for disposal. After having gone through the record in connection with the application of Par-manand and others, I am in a position to say without hesitation that no good purpose would be served by the further continuance of the proceedings initiated by the order complained of. The statement in respect of which it is suggested that the offence of giving false evidence was committed was qualified in cross-examination by an admission that the deponent was not quite sure, and was only speaking to the best of his recollection and belief. According to the English practice he should then have been asked whether he was prepared to swear to the fact as true. It is obvious from his answers that he would have declined to do so. If it was any part of the case for the prosecution that the present applicant was shielding the three accused persons from justice, his examination before the Court, and more particularly his cross-examination on behalf of the prosecution, should have been conducted upon different lines. As the record stands, materials for a successful prosecution for perjury are obviously lacking. Following the precedent set in the reported case already referred to, I discharge the Magistrate's order calling upon the petitioner, Mr. T.N. Chadha, to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial