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: Katari Veeranna

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jul 14, 1916
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/800131

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 476, scope of - Person not party to proceeding nor examined as witness, whether can be sent to nearest Magistrate--Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 196--Using evidence known to be false, what constitutes--Abortive attempt to secure medical certificate, whether of...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Katari Veeranna

Legal References

Reported In
35Ind.Cas.820

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 476, scope of - person not party to proceeding nor examined as witness, whether can be sent to nearest magistrate--penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 196--using evidence known to be false, what constitutes--abortive attempt to secure medical certificate, whether offence under section 196. - - the evidence in this case taken at its best shows that the accused has been attempting to get from the medical officer a certificate which maybe used on a subsequent occasion.orderseshagiri aiyar, j.1. i have serious doubts whether the magistrate has jurisdiction to send a person, who has not been a party to any proceedings before him and who has not been examined as a witness in the case, to the nearest magistrate under section 476, criminal procedure code. but apart from that, there are serious objections to the maintainability of his order. in the first place as regards the direction to enquire into the offence under section 161, indian penal code, it is clear, as pointed out by dr. swaminathan, that that section is not one of those mentioned in section 195, criminal procedure code. the learned public prosecutor does not press this portion of the case. then as regards the prosecution under section 196, indian penal code, it is clear from a reading of that section that there must be some evidence in existence which the party is either using or attempting to use. the evidence in this case taken at its best shows that the accused has been attempting to get from the medical officer a certificate which maybe used on a subsequent occasion. the certificate was never given. under those circumstances no evidence was in existence which could have been utilised by the accused for improper purposes. i, therefore, think that the order directing an enquiry under section 476 with reference to these two references was passed without jurisdiction. i set aside the order and all the proceedings taken subsequent' to the passing of the order.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Seshagiri Aiyar, J.

1. I have serious doubts whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction to send a person, who has not been a party to any proceedings before him and who has not been examined as a witness in the case, to the nearest Magistrate under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. But apart from that, there are serious objections to the maintainability of his order. In the first place as regards the direction to enquire into the offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, it is clear, as pointed out by Dr. Swaminathan, that that section is not one of those mentioned in Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Public Prosecutor does not press this portion of the case. Then as regards the prosecution under Section 196, Indian Penal Code, it is clear from a reading of that section that there must be some evidence in existence which the party is either using or attempting to use. The evidence in this case taken at its best shows that the accused has been attempting to get from the Medical Officer a certificate which maybe used on a subsequent occasion. The certificate was never given. Under those circumstances no evidence was in existence which could have been utilised by the accused for improper purposes. I, therefore, think that the order directing an enquiry under Section 476 with reference to these two references was passed without jurisdiction. I set aside the order and all the proceedings taken subsequent' to the passing of the order.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial