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.

In Re: HussaIn Beg

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 02, 1908
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/787738

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 (Act V of 1898), Section 565(4) - Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Sections 176 Clause (1) and (2) and 177--Failure to give information in respect of offences generally and of particular offences. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: HussaIn Beg

Legal References

Cases Referred
Panatulla v. Queen
Reported In
3Ind.Cas.612

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 565(4) - penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 176 clause (1) and (2) and 177--failure to give information in respect of offences generally and of particular offences. - order1. we are of opinion that cases under section 565 (4) of the code of criminal procedure should be dealt with under the first part of section 176 of the indian penal code. we are fortified in this opinion by the ruling in panatulla v. queen-empress 15 c. 386 in which it was held that the aggravated penalty constituted by the second clause of section 177 of indian penal code can only be inflicted when the information required to be given relates to the commission of some particular offence and not of offences generally. the words for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence' in section 176 of the indian penal code should, we think, be construed in the same way. the information required to be given under section 565 (4) of the criminal procedure code cannot be said to be required for the purpose of preventing the commission of any particular offence though it may be required for the purpose of preventing the commission of offences generally.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. We are of opinion that cases under Section 565 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be dealt with under the first part of Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code. We are fortified in this opinion by the ruling in Panatulla v. Queen-Empress 15 C. 386 in which it was held that the aggravated penalty constituted by the second Clause of Section 177 of Indian Penal Code can only be inflicted when the information required to be given relates to the commission of some particular offence and not of offences generally. The words for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence' in Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code should, we think, be construed in the same way. The information required to be given under Section 565 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be said to be required for the purpose of preventing the commission of any particular offence though it may be required for the purpose of preventing the commission of offences generally.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial