Sawminatha thevan Vs. Emperor

Sawminatha thevan vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided May 03, 1912

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/812167

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/812167
Court: Chennai
Judge: Sundara Aiyar, J.
Decided On: May 03, 1912
Subject: Crminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 211 - Preferring a false charge--Communication of suspicion to Police--Whether amounts to institution of a criminal proceeding. -

Key legal issue: Crminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sawminatha thevan

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: 14Ind.Cas.767

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 211 - preferring a false charge--communication of suspicion to police--whether amounts to institution of a criminal proceeding. - ordersundara aiyar, j.1. the conviction in this case cannot be sustained. the accused merely stated that he suspected the complainant of theft and mentioned the facts on which his suspicion was based. section 211, indian penal code, requires that there should be an institution of a criminal proceeding by the accused against the complainant. the expression of a suspicion did not amount to the institution of a criminal charge. the police, no doubt, acted upon his suspicion and took steps to prosecute the complainant. the accused cannot be held responsible for this. i must set aside the conviction and sentence; the bail-bond of the accused will be cancelled, and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Sundara Aiyar, J.

1. The conviction in this case cannot be sustained. The accused merely stated that he suspected the complainant of theft and mentioned the facts on which his suspicion was based. Section 211, Indian Penal Code, requires that there should be an institution of a criminal proceeding by the accused against the complainant. The expression of a suspicion did not amount to the institution of a criminal charge. The Police, no doubt, acted upon his suspicion and took steps to prosecute the complainant. The accused cannot be held responsible for this. I must set aside the conviction and sentence; the bail-bond of the accused will be cancelled, and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Same Parties Sawminatha thevan vs Emperor Same Subject Crminal Same Judge Sundara Aiyar, J.

Crminal