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

1956 Supreme(MP) 23

CHATURVEDI
BRIJNATH KEDARNATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Judgement

Chaturvedi, J

[1] These are three references made by the Sessions Judge, Indore, in three different cases against the accused-petitioner Brijnath. As the point of law involved is common, this decision will dispose of all the three references.

[2] Petitioner Brijnath, an employee in the State Electric Supply Company is being prosecuted under Sections 409 and 465, I. P. C., for different items in these three cases. In his defence, he wanted two letters, both dealing with the sanction for his prosecution, one being from the Inspector General of Police to the Home Secretary and another letter from the Assistant Home Secretary to the Secretary Public Works Department. The accused-petitioner thinks that there is something in his favour in these letters, and, therefore, he wants them to be produced in the trial Court. The Inspector General of Police claimed privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. This claim was accepted by the trial Court; but the Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that these letters cannot be privileged, and he wants an order from this Court to the prosecution of these letters in the Court below.

[3] The learned Government Advocate has










































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top