Back
1943 Supreme(Cal) 18
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Henderson, J.
Emperor - Appellant
Versus
Chuni Lal De & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 25-06-1943
Misconceived prosecution based on the opinion of a doctor does not justify prosecution under section 198, Penal Code.
Headnote:
Misconceived Prosecution - Quashing of Proceedings - Opinion of Doctor
Fact of the Case:
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the prosecution of the complainant and his pleader under section 198, Penal Code, based on a certificate from a doctor stating severe injuries, which was later found to be false.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the severity of the injury was a matter of opinion and that it was difficult for the accused persons to know that the doctor's opinion was false. The prosecution under this section was misconceived as it did not justify a prosecution for conspiracy to fabricate false evidence.
Issues: Misconceived prosecution under section 198, Penal Code
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution under section 198, Penal Code was misconceived as the severity of the injury was a matter of opinion and there was no justification for prosecution for conspiracy to fabricate false evidence.
Final Decision: The court accepted the reference and directed that the proceedings pending against the accused persons be quashed.
ORDER
Henderson, J. - This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Dacca recommending that certain proceedings pending against the petitioner and another person u/s 198, Penal Code, should be quashed. The other person referred to is the complainant in a certain case. The petitioner is his pleader. A certificate was produced given by a certain doctor to the effect that the injuries on the complainant were severe. This certificate appeared to be so absurd that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had the complainant examined by another doctor who stated that the injuries in question were slight. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate is apparently of opinion that the practice of granting certificates of this kind is growing far too common and therefore directed the prosecution of the complainant and his pleader u/s 198, Penal Code, although the chief culprit if there be a culprit, was the doctor.
2. The severity of the injury is a matter of opinion. Apart from other difficulties pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge, it is difficult to see how the accused persons could know that an opinion given by a doctor was false. The prosecution under this section was clearly misconceived. It may be that the doctor thought that the injury was slight and gave a false opinion at the instigation of the complainant or the pleader. This would really be a conspiracy to fabricate false evidence, which is quite a different offence. There is nothing on the record, which would justify a prosecution on that ground. I accordingly accept the reference and direct that the proceedings pending against the accused persons be quashed.
