STATE Vs. BALA PRASAD
LAWS(RAJ)-1952-1-6
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 22,1952

STATE Appellant
VERSUS
BALA PRASAD Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM RAKHA V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
BACHALAL VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
OYYAPPA KONE VS. CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR, PRESIDENT, VALLALAPPATTI PANCHAYAT COURT [REFERRED TO]
SUDARSAN BARHAMBHAT VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

RAMDEO VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1960-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
DAVINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1990-9-98] [REFERRED TO]
JARNAIL SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1983-2-41] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Bikaner in a case in which one Bala Prasad was prosecuted under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The facts of the case may be briefly narrated. Bala Prasad sent an application to the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Bikaner, in April 1950, in which he said that certain persons had murdered an old woman for her money and had thrown her body in a tank and had spread a false rumour that she had left the village. He also said that the body had come afloat on the tank after three days and was quickly cremated and no information was given to the Police about it. The Dy. Inspector General of Police forwarded this application to the Sub- Inspector of Police, Gersar, who investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the information given by Bala Prasad was false and was given with the intention of putting the persons named in the application to harassment. Thereupon, a complaint under Section 182, Indian Penal Code was filed against Bala Prasad in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (North) Bikaner. That Magistrate acquitted the accused and thereupon there was a revision before the District Magistrate who has made this reference with the recommendation that the order of acquittal should be set aside.
(3.)The Magistrate had acquitted the accused on two grounds. The first was that the facts disclosed a case under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 182. The second was that the complaint should have been made by the Dy. Inspector General of Police and not by the Superintendent of Police. The District Magistrate has disagreed with the conclusion of the Magistrate concerned on both these points. I propose to examine these two points one by one.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.