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

KHAN
Karansingh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Anand, for Applicant;
Govt. Advocate, for the State.

ORDER :

1. The accused has been convicted by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhind, under S. 193, I.P.C., for intentionally giving false evidence and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100. His appeal against his conviction and sentence having been disallowed by the Sessions Judge, the accused has now filed this revision.

2. The charge against the accused is that in Criminal Case No. 304 of 1952, before the Committing Court, Gohad, as a prosecution witness he made a certain statement on 25-3-1953, and, that later on in the same case during the trial before the Sessions Court (Case No. 13 of 1953), Bhind, on 27-7-1953. he made a different statement altogether. Charges under Sections 193 and 194, I.P.C., were framed against the accused. While he was acquitted of an offence under S. 194, I.P.C., he was convicted under S. 193, I.P.C. only.

3. From the record it appears that the Sessions Judge, Bhind, made a complaint against the applicant under S. 476, Criminal P.C. and sent the applicant to the Additional District Magistrate for his being tried for an offence under S. 194, I.P.C. only. The Additional District Magistrate framed two charges against the pe





























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