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: Sadagopan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 25, 1972
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/817381

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Sadagopan

Legal References

Reported In
1973CriLJ113

Excerpt

- k.n. mudaliyar, j.1. this is an appeal against the judgment of the iii presidency magistrate, convicting the accused for an offence under section 420, i.p.c.the gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on the 18th day of june. 1968. he cheated the special district educational officer. chingleput, (p. w. 2). by dishonestly inducing him to select the accused for the post of drawing master, by falsely representing that the accused had the minimum general qualification. the prosecution sought to prove the offence against the accused by the testimony of p. w 2 who deposed in his evidence that the candidates should have passed the higher grade drawing. he added that they should have passed iii form also. then he referred to ex. r. 4 the report from headmaster of the high school, heyyadupakkam. he also stated that the the accused gave a bogus certificate to (the effect that he had passed iii form. but. in cross-examination. p. w. 2. admitted that the accused produced the technical certificate in drawing at the time of the selection and on the basis of that certificate, p. w. 2 selected him. he also stated that the accused did not produce any other certificate. he confessed that he had no personal knowledge about the bogus certificate.3. on this evidence, it is clearly brought out that there was no false representation made to the witness. p. w. 2, in regard to the selection of the accused. at any rate, there is no proof of any false representation made by the accused that he had the minimum general qualification before he was selected and appointed by p. w. 2. on this ground of want of proof of false representation made by the accused about his minimum general qualification, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.4. i acquit him of the offence under section 420, i.p.c. the criminal appeal is allowed.

Full Judgment

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the III Presidency Magistrate, convicting the accused for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C.

The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on the 18th day of June. 1968. he cheated the Special District Educational Officer. Chingleput, (P. W. 2). by dishonestly inducing him to select the accused for the post of drawing Master, by falsely representing that the accused had the minimum general qualification. The prosecution sought to prove the offence against the accused by the testimony of P. W 2 who deposed in his evidence that the candidates should have passed the Higher Grade Drawing. He added that they should have passed III Form also. Then he referred to Ex. R. 4 the report from Headmaster of the High School, Heyyadupakkam. He also stated that the the accused gave a bogus certificate to (the effect that he had passed III Form. But. in cross-examination. P. W. 2. admitted that the accused produced the technical certificate in drawing at the time of the selection and on the basis of that certificate, P. W. 2 selected him. He also stated that the accused did not produce any other certificate. He confessed that he had no personal knowledge about the bogus certificate.

3. On this evidence, it is clearly brought out that there was no false representation made to the witness. P. W. 2, in regard to the selection of the accused. At any rate, there is no proof of any false representation made by the accused that he had the minimum general qualification before he was selected and appointed by P. W. 2. On this ground of want of proof of false representation made by the accused about his minimum general qualification, the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

4. I acquit him of the offence under Section 420, I.P.C. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial