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.

Monohar Ali Vs. Emperor

Monohar Ali vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 08, 1926
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/871045

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
Kolkata
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Monohar Ali

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1927Cal515

Excerpt

- 1. this is a complaint made by the sessions judge of noakhali under section 476, criminal procedure code, against one monohar ali on the ground that this person gave false evidence in his court. in his complaint the learned judge states that monohar appears to have given false evidence before him in the sessions case no. 1 of april 1926, having made the following statement:i know golam rahaman, son of idris constable's sister. he married p.w. monu chowkidar's sister now dead.2. the learned judge is of opinion that this statement that 'monu chowkidar's sister now dead' is false because it was contradicted by manu chowkidar himself. he states that his sister is not dead but has been divorced and is still living. it may here be stated that the case in which this false evidence is alleged to have been given was a case of theft brought against noab ali by one nazir ahmed. it was alleged in that case that noab ali had entered nazir ahmed's house and stolen a number of articles. mr. khundkar, the counsel for the crown, admits that whether monu chowkidar's sister was alive or whether she was dead had nothing whatever to do with the case and nothing in the case turned upon it. obviously, therefore, whether she was alive or dead made no difference whatever in the case. if the false statement made is clearly immaterial and if nothing hinges on it then clearly this is not a fit case for making a complaint for the prosecution of the witness.3. the result is we must order that this complaint should be withdrawn.

Full Judgment

1. This is a complaint made by the Sessions Judge of Noakhali under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, against one Monohar Ali on the ground that this person gave false evidence in his Court. In his complaint the learned Judge states that Monohar appears to have given false evidence before him in the Sessions Case No. 1 of April 1926, having made the following statement:

I know Golam Rahaman, son of Idris constable's sister. He married P.W. Monu Chowkidar's sister now dead.

2. The learned Judge is of opinion that this statement that 'Monu Chowkidar's sister now dead' is false because it was contradicted by Manu Chowkidar himself. He states that his sister is not dead but has been divorced and is still living. It may here be stated that the case in which this false evidence is alleged to have been given was a case of theft brought against Noab Ali by one Nazir Ahmed. It was alleged in that case that Noab Ali had entered Nazir Ahmed's house and stolen a number of articles. Mr. Khundkar, the counsel for the Crown, admits that whether Monu Chowkidar's sister was alive or whether she was dead had nothing whatever to do with the case and nothing in the case turned upon it. Obviously, therefore, whether she was alive or dead made no difference whatever in the case. If the false statement made is clearly immaterial and if nothing hinges on it then clearly this is not a fit case for making a complaint for the prosecution of the witness.

3. The result is we must order that this complaint should be withdrawn.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial