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.

Suppa Tevan and ors. Vs. Emperor

Suppa Tevan and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 19, 1905
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/782089

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.

Penal Code - Act XLV of 1860, Section 193--'Judicial proceeding'--Oaths Act X of 1873, Sections 4, 6--Criminal Procedure Code--Act 1898, Section 164--Magistrate empowered to administer oaths taking statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. - - 2. On the merits we are satisfied that the appellant...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suppa Tevan and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Alagu Kone I.L.R.
Reported In
(1905)ILR29Mad89

Excerpt

penal code - act xlv of 1860, section 193--'judicial proceeding'--oaths act x of 1873, sections 4, 6--criminal procedure code--act 1898, section 164--magistrate empowered to administer oaths taking statements under section 164 of the criminal procedure code. - - 2. on the merits we are satisfied that the appellants have been rightly convicted the sentences are not too severe.1. the first ground of appeal is that the sub-magistrate of uthamapalayan when taking down statements under section 104, criminal procedure code, was not authorized to administer an oath to the persons examined by him. following the decision in queen-empress v. alagu kone i.l.r. 16 mad. 421, we hold that he was so entitled. the sub-magistrate is a court and when he took down statements under this section he was acting in discharge of a duty imposed on him by law and was consequently under section 4, act x of 1873, authorized to administer an oath. the appellants were persons to whom an oath might be administered, because they were persons who could lawfully be examined by the sub-magistrate under section 164, criminal procedure code (vide section 5, oaths act). it is further urged that the conviction of the appellants under section 193 of the penal code was not legal. in the face of the provisions of the explanation attached to that section we cannot accept this contention. an investigation under chapter xiv of the criminal procedure code is a stage of a judicial proceeding and therefore when the appellants made on oath statements which they knew to be false before the magistrate conducting that investigation they gave false evidence (vide illustration appended to explanation 2) and committed an offence under section 193, penal code.2. on the merits we are satisfied that the appellants have been rightly convicted the sentences are not too severe. these appeals are dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The first ground of appeal is that the Sub-Magistrate of Uthamapalayan when taking down statements under Section 104, Criminal Procedure Code, was not authorized to administer an oath to the persons examined by him. Following the decision in Queen-Empress v. Alagu Kone I.L.R. 16 Mad. 421, we hold that he was so entitled. The Sub-Magistrate is a Court and when he took down statements under this section he was acting in discharge of a duty imposed on him by law and was consequently under Section 4, Act X of 1873, authorized to administer an oath. The appellants were persons to whom an oath might be administered, because they were persons who could lawfully be examined by the Sub-Magistrate under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code (vide Section 5, Oaths Act). It is further urged that the conviction of the appellants under Section 193 of the Penal Code was not legal. In the face of the provisions of the explanation attached to that section we cannot accept this contention. An investigation under Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code is a stage of a judicial proceeding and therefore when the appellants made on oath statements which they knew to be false before the Magistrate conducting that investigation they gave false evidence (vide illustration appended to explanation 2) and committed an offence under Section 193, Penal Code.

2. On the merits we are satisfied that the appellants have been rightly convicted the sentences are not too severe. These appeals are dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial