Queen-empress Vs. Batesar Mandal

Queen-empress vs Batesar Mandal

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 24, 1884

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/858240

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/858240
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Tottenham and ;Norris, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 24, 1884
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

False statement before a Registrar - Prosecution under the Registration Act (III of 1877), Section 82, Clause (a) and Section 83--Sections 72 and 73. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Batesar Mandal

Legal References

Cases Referred: and Queen v. Smith L.R.
Reported In: (1884)ILR10Cal604

Excerpt

false statement before a registrar - prosecution under the registration act (iii of 1877), section 82, clause (a) and section 83--sections 72 and 73. - .....that mr. gasper's contention was well founded; but upon consideration and on examination of the authorities we are of opinion that it cannot be sustained. for the purpose of this case we assume that the proceedings before the registrar were taken under section 72 of the act and not as they should have been under section 73; and that what the registrar heard was an appeal and not an application. now, no doubt, the accused, when he appeared before the registrar, might have pointed out this irregularity, and might have asked the registrar to make no order or to dismiss the appeal; but he appeared, made no objection to the form of the proceedings, and must be held to have waived the irregularity. under these circumstances we are of opinion that upon the authority of reg. v. barry 28 l.j. (m.c.) 86: 8 cox c.c. 121; queen v. fletcher l.r. 1 c.c.r. 320; turner v. postmaster-general 5 b. and s. 756; queen v. hughes l.r. 4 q.b.d. 614: 14 cox c.c. 285 the accused may properly be charged with giving false evidence at the enquiry before the registrar. we are also of opinion that the accused waived any irregularity in the verification of the petition of appeal treating that document as an application under section 73, and that the second contention by mr. gasper fails. see the cases above cited and queen v. smith l.r. 1 c.c.r. 110: 11 cox c.c. 10.2. as to the third point raised, we are of opinion that the joint magistrate had no authority to frame the second charge. the prosecution for the offence of giving false evidence before the sub-registrar was neither commenced by him, or by any of the officers mentioned in section 83, nor was it sanctioned by any or either of them. these being our views on the case the magistrate will proceed to dispose of the first charge against the accused as he may think proper, having regard to the evidence before him, of the sufficiency of which we offer no opinion. the proceedings on the second charge must be set aside.

Full Judgment

Tottenham and Norris, JJ.

1. With regard to the first point we were, during the argument, inclined to think that Mr. Gasper's contention was well founded; but upon consideration and on examination of the authorities we are of opinion that it cannot be sustained. For the purpose of this case we assume that the proceedings before the Registrar were taken under Section 72 of the Act and not as they should have been under Section 73; and that what the Registrar heard was an appeal and not an application. Now, no doubt, the accused, when he appeared before the Registrar, might have pointed out this irregularity, and might have asked the Registrar to make no order or to dismiss the appeal; but he appeared, made no objection to the form of the proceedings, and must be held to have waived the irregularity. Under these circumstances we are of opinion that upon the authority of Reg. v. Barry 28 L.J. (M.C.) 86: 8 Cox C.C. 121; Queen v. Fletcher L.R. 1 C.C.R. 320; Turner v. Postmaster-General 5 B. and S. 756; Queen v. Hughes L.R. 4 Q.B.D. 614: 14 Cox C.C. 285 the accused may properly be charged with giving false evidence at the enquiry before the Registrar. We are also of opinion that the accused waived any irregularity in the verification of the petition of appeal treating that document as an application under Section 73, and that the second contention by Mr. Gasper fails. See the cases above cited and Queen v. Smith L.R. 1 C.C.R. 110: 11 Cox C.C. 10.

2. As to the third point raised, we are of opinion that the Joint Magistrate had no authority to frame the second charge. The prosecution for the offence of giving false evidence before the Sub-Registrar was neither commenced by him, or by any of the officers mentioned in Section 83, nor was it sanctioned by any or either of them. These being our views on the case the Magistrate will proceed to dispose of the first charge against the accused as he may think proper, having regard to the evidence before him, of the sufficiency of which we offer no opinion. The proceedings on the second charge must be set aside.

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Batesar Mandal Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Tottenham and ;Norris, JJ.

Criminal