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.

The Queen-empress Vs. Kuppu

The Queen-empress vs Kuppu

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Aug 15, 1884
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778937

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
Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 195, 435 - Sanction to prosecute for perjur granted by Magistrate on revising calendar. - - The object of giving the power to sanction is to secure, as far as possible, that no man shall be prosecuted unless the Court hearing the case or a superior Court is satisfied that it is a ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Queen-empress

Respondent

Kuppu

Legal References

Reported In
(1883)ILR7Mad560

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, sections 195, 435 - sanction to prosecute for perjur granted by magistrate on revising calendar. - - the object of giving the power to sanction is to secure, as far as possible, that no man shall be prosecuted unless the court hearing the case or a superior court is satisfied that it is a proper case to put the party on his trial. the joint magistrate not having read the evidence was not in the position which the law contemplates to be satisfied that the party had committed perjury......of giving the power to sanction is to secure, as far as possible, that no man shall be prosecuted unless the court hearing the case or a superior court is satisfied that it is a proper case to put the party on his trial. the joint magistrate not having read the evidence was not in the position which the law contemplates to be satisfied that the party had committed perjury. no opportunity was given to the party to be heard on this very important matter, and the order was made behind his back.5. the joint magistrate in perusing the calendar under section 435 was acting merely within its provisions, which are to satisfy himself ' as to the correctness of any finding, sentence, or order, &c.;, as to the regularity of the proceeding of the second-class magistrate.' the joint magistrate was not then acting in a judicial proceeding, section 4 (d). the sanction purported to be given was, under the circumstances, illegal.6. the joint magistrate did not act under section 476 as the matter was not brought before him in any judicial proceeding, section 4 (d). even if he was acting under that section, he should have sent the case for inquiry before a first-class magistrate.7. the joint magistrate did not himself make any complaint. the order for sanction must be set aside.

Full Judgment

Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.

1. The facts are stated by the referring officer. The offence for which the Joint Magistrate purported to give sanction under Section 195 was perjury committed before the Second-class Magistrate who did not give, nor was b.e applied to for, sanction, though, he stated, he disbelieved the witness.

2. The Joint Magistrate on reading the calendar and apparently without reading the evidence or forming an opinion from it whether the witness had committed perjury and without any application for the purpose purported to give sanction to prosecute the witness.

3. The Joint Magistrate when he granted sanction was not sitting as a Court to hear the case in any stage of it, nor was any application before him.

4. Sanction should not be given by any Court without first examining the evidence. The object of giving the power to sanction is to secure, as far as possible, that no man shall be prosecuted unless the Court hearing the case or a superior Court is satisfied that it is a proper case to put the party on his trial. The Joint Magistrate not having read the evidence was not in the position which the law contemplates to be satisfied that the party had committed perjury. No opportunity was given to the party to be heard on this very important matter, and the order was made behind his back.

5. The Joint Magistrate in perusing the calendar under Section 435 was acting merely within its provisions, which are to satisfy himself ' as to the correctness of any finding, sentence, or order, &c.;, as to the regularity of the proceeding of the Second-class Magistrate.' The Joint Magistrate was not then acting in a judicial proceeding, section 4 (d). The sanction purported to be given was, under the circumstances, illegal.

6. The Joint Magistrate did not act under Section 476 as the matter was not brought before him in any judicial proceeding, section 4 (d). Even if he was acting under that section, he should have sent the case for inquiry before a First-class Magistrate.

7. The Joint Magistrate did not himself make any complaint. The order for sanction must be set aside.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial