Emperor Vs. Reed

Emperor vs Reed

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 22, 1921

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/877233

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/877233
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Buckland, J.
Decided On: Jun 22, 1921
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Witness - Public Prosecutor, whether bound to call false witness. -

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Reed

Legal References

Cases Referred: Empress v. Durga
Reported In: 69Ind.Cas.630

Excerpt

witness - public prosecutor, whether bound to call false witness. - buckland, j.1. i know of no authority, nor has any been advanced for the proposition that it is the duty of the public prosecutor to call a witness who he has reason to believe would give false evidence. in stating my opinion i cannot do better than adopt the language of a former chief justice of the high court at allahabad when be said in queen-empress v. durga 16 a. 84 : a.w.n. (1894) 7 : 8 ind. dec. (n.s.) 55. (f.b.): 'it cannot be the duty of a public prosecutor acting on behalf of the government and the country to call or put into the witness box for cross-examination a witness whom be believes to be a false or unnecessary witness.' the learned standing counsel has refused to call mr. grant on the ground that he believes him to be a false witness. in the former trial mr, grant was called by the court and cross examined by both sides. he was not examined as a witness for the crown, in which case other considerations would have arisen, and in the circumstances i decline to interfere.

Full Judgment

Buckland, J.

1. I know of no authority, nor has any been advanced for the proposition that it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to call a witness who he has reason to believe would give false evidence. In stating my opinion I cannot do better than adopt the language of a former Chief Justice of the High Court at Allahabad when be said in Queen-Empress v. Durga 16 A. 84 : A.W.N. (1894) 7 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 55. (F.B.): 'It cannot be the duty of a Public Prosecutor acting on behalf of the Government and the country to call or put into the witness box for cross-examination a witness whom be believes to be a false or unnecessary witness.' The learned Standing Counsel has refused to call Mr. Grant on the ground that he believes him to be a false witness. In the former trial Mr, Grant was called by the Court and cross examined by both sides. He was not examined as a witness for the Crown, in which case other considerations would have arisen, and in the circumstances I decline to interfere.

Same Parties Emperor vs Reed Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Buckland, J.

Land Acquisition