SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1869 Supreme(Cal) 266

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Roe - Appellant
Versus
Roe - Respondent
Decided On : 17-06-1869

Headnote:

Procedure - Criminal Procedure - Sections 221, 222 IPC - The court held that a failure in the general form of charge would not prevent the prosecution from proceeding on a specific charge.

Fact of the Case:

The key facts of the case are not provided in the given judgment text.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that a failure in the general form of charge would not prevent the prosecution from proceeding on a specific charge.

Issues: The key issue in the case was whether a failure in the general form of charge would prevent the prosecution from proceeding on a specific charge.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sections 221 and 222 of the Indian Penal Code, which allow the prosecution to frame a specific charge even if the general form of charge is flawed.

Final Decision: The court ruled that a failure in the general form of charge would not prevent the prosecution from proceeding on a specific charge.

JUDGMENT

Phear, J. - I do not think it is necessary. Failure upon the general form of charge will probably not prevent you from proceeding upon a specific one.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top