LexM S SHERIFF versus THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1954 Hem Raj v. The State of Ajmer. Mahajan C. J. 1954 March 18. 1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] in holding that this evidence by itself was insufficient to uphold his conviction and that Hukum Singh was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in respect of both the charges found against him. There is hardly any material on the record to justify our interference with an order of acquittal in an appeal by special leave. In the result both these appeals fail and are dismissed. Appeals dismissed. M. S. SHERIFF f/. THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE and GHuLAM HASAN JJ.] CTiminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), s. 476B-Whether appeal competent to the Suprenie Court from aT?_ order of Division Bench of High Court directing the filing of a complaint for perjury. Held that an appe~l is competent to the Supreme Court under s. 476B of the Code of Criminal Procedure from an order of a Division Bench of a High Court directing the filing of a com- plaint for perjury. Also held. that the simultaneous prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings regarding the same matter is likely to embarrass the accused and so ord£narily, and in the absence of special circumstances, the criminal proceedings should be given precedence and the civil proceedings should be stayed pending the termination of the criminal. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Case No. 281 of 1951. Appeal under article 132 of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 1st August, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 1261 and 1263 of 1951. K. Rajah Iyer Aiyangar, with him) (R. Ganapathy Iyer and M. S. K. for the appellant/petitioners . • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1145 H. J. Umrigar and S. Subramaniam for respon- dent No. 2. 1954. March 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BoSE J.-The question in this case is whether an appeal lies to this court under section 476B of the Criminal Procedure Code from an order of a Division Bench of a High Court directing the filing of a com- plaint for perjury. Two persons, Govindan and Damodaran, filed peti- tions under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release claimii;ig that they had been illegally detained by two Sub-Inspectors of Police who are the appellants before us. Govindan said he was being detained by one Sub-Inspector and Damodaran said he was being detained by the other. Both the Sub. Inspectors said that the petitioners were not in their custody. The first Sub-Inspector, who was concerned with Govindan, said that Govindan had never been arrested by him and had not been in his custody at any time. The other denied that Damodaran was in his custody. He admitted that he had arrested him at one time but said that he had been released long before the petition. Each swore an affidavit in support of his return. In view of this conflict between the two sets of statements the High Court directed the District Judge to make an enquiry. Considerable evidence was recorded and documents were filed and the District Judge reported that in his opinion the statements made by the two Suh-Inspec- tors were correct. The High Court disagreed and, after an elaborate examination of the evidence, reach- ed the conclusion that the petitioners were telling the truth and not the Sub-Inspectors. The petitioners were however regularly arrested after their petitions and before the High Court's order; one was released on bail and the other was remanded to jail custody by an order of a Magistrate. Accordingly their petitions became infructuous and were dismissed. After this, the petitioners applied to the High Court under section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 1954 M. S. S"'7if/ v. T!w State ef Madras and Othe1's. Bose]. 1954 M. S. Sheriff v. Th< State of Madras and Others. Bose]. 1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] asked that the Sub-Inspectors be prosecuted for perjury under section 193, Indian Penal Code. The applications were granted and the Deputy Registrar of the High Court was directed to make the necessary complaints. The Sub-Inspectors thereupon asked for leave to appeal to this court. Leave was refused on the ground that no appeal lies, but leave was granted u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.