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: Vemi Reddi Lacha Reddi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 27, 1909
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/797944

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 176 - Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) Section 45(1)(c)--Intentional omission to furnish information to public servant by a person legally bound I to do so--Village Magistrate receiving information of loss or theft of jewel--Failure to report to Police--Conviction. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Vemi Reddi Lacha Reddi

Legal References

Reported In
1Ind.Cas.245

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 176 - criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 45(1)(c)--intentional omission to furnish information to public servant by a person legally bound i to do so--village magistrate receiving information of loss or theft of jewel--failure to report to police--conviction. - order1. it is clear from the evidence of prosecution witness no. 2 that the only information, that the village magistrate--accused--had, was that a jewel, belonging to p.w. no. 2, was missing, whether because it had been stolen or because the daughter of p.w. no. 2 had lost it. this being so, it cannot be said that the village magistrate had any information of the commission of that offence of theft, which, under section 45(c), criminal procedure code, he was bound to communicate to the magistrate or police. we set aside the conviction against the accused and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. It is clear from the evidence of Prosecution Witness No. 2 that the only information, that the Village Magistrate--accused--had, was that a jewel, belonging to P.W. No. 2, was missing, whether because it had been stolen or because the daughter of P.W. No. 2 had lost it. This being so, it cannot be said that the Village Magistrate had any information of the commission of that offence of theft, which, under Section 45(c), Criminal Procedure Code, he was bound to communicate to the Magistrate or Police. We set aside the conviction against the accused and direct that the fine, if paid, be refunded.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial