imandy Appalaswami Vs. Emperor

imandy Appalaswami vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 21, 1914

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/818359

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/818359
Court: Chennai
Judge: Oldfield and ;Tyabji, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 21, 1914
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Sections 182, 211 - Autrefois acquit--Burden of proof--Offence under Section 182--Complaint to public servant, whether necessary. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

imandy Appalaswami

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1915Mad315; 25Ind.Cas.1000

Excerpt

penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 182, 211 - autrefois acquit--burden of proof--offence under section 182--complaint to public servant, whether necessary. - .....308 that the accused, who has been placed on his trial on a charge of an offence punishable under section 211, indian penal code, cannot be tried again for one punishable under section 182, indian penal code. it was for the accused to establish the facts necessary for the application of this authority; and we cannot find on the record anything to show that he was acquitted in the previous proceedings and not merely discharged. in these circumstances the plea has not been established.2. next, it is urged that section 182 applies only to a complaint to a public servant when it is made with the intention of inducing such public servant to take action of a sort which only a public servant of the description in question could take and which would not be open to a private individual. in illustration (a) to section 182 the action expected to be taken by the public servant was simply dismissal of a subordinate and any master could do the same. this illustration is, therefore, irreconcilable with accused's interpretation of the section which must be rejected.3. the petition is, therefore, dismissed.tyabji, j.4. i agree that the plea of previous acquittal is not made out.5. on the facts proved i think the conviction was justified because the accused gave to a public servant, (the sub-postmaster) information which the accused knew to be false intending thereby to cause the sub-postmaster to do something (viz. sending information to the police) which he ought not to have done if the true state of facts were known by him. it is argued that the sub-postmaster did not send information to the police in his official capacity. i will assume that that would be relevant to the question. i do not express any opinion on this point. the act referred to in illustration (a) to the section as likely to be brought about by the false information is dismissal by the magistrate' of his subordinate. that is clearly an official act that. could be done by the magistrate only as a magistrate. it.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Oldfield, J.

1. It is first argued with reference to K. Ganapathi Bhotta's case 19 Ind. Cas. 310 : 24 M.L.J. 463 : 13 M.L.T. 360 : 14 Cri. L.J. 214 : 36 M. 308 that the accused, who has been placed on his trial on a charge of an offence punishable under Section 211, Indian Penal Code, cannot be tried again for one punishable under Section 182, Indian Penal Code. It was for the accused to establish the facts necessary for the application of this authority; and we cannot find on the record anything to show that he was acquitted in the previous proceedings and not merely discharged. In these circumstances the plea has not been established.

2. Next, it is urged that Section 182 applies only to a complaint to a public servant when it is made with the intention of inducing such public servant to take action of a sort which only a public servant of the description in question could take and which would not be open to a private individual. In illustration (a) to Section 182 the action expected to be taken by the public servant was simply dismissal of a subordinate and any master could do the same. This illustration is, therefore, irreconcilable with accused's interpretation of the section which must be rejected.

3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Tyabji, J.

4. I agree that the plea of previous acquittal is not made out.

5. On the facts proved I think the conviction was justified because the accused gave to a public servant, (the Sub-Postmaster) information which the accused knew to be false intending thereby to cause the Sub-Postmaster to do something (viz. sending information to the Police) which he ought not to have done if the true state of facts were known by him. It is argued that the Sub-Postmaster did not send information to the Police in his official capacity. I will assume that that would be relevant to the question. I do not express any opinion on this point. The act referred to in illustration (a) to the section as likely to be brought about by the false information is dismissal by the Magistrate' of his subordinate. That is clearly an official act that. could be done by the Magistrate only as a Magistrate. It seems to me however, that the information by the Sub-Postmaster in the present case was sent by him in his official capacity.

6. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Same Parties imandy Appalaswami vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Oldfield and ;Tyabji, JJ.

Criminal