Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)
Mohan Singh vs Emperor on 13 December, 1933 cites

Manikkam Alias Manika Asari vs Emperor on 3 August, 1909

3. Before entering into the merits of the case I have to take notice of a question of law argued by the learned advocate for the appellant, which, if decided in favour of the appellant, will not require consideration of the evidence bearing on his guilt or innocence. It was argued before me that the complaint of Guman Singh was one disclosing an offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to convict the accused of an offence under Section 498, I.P.C. in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 199, Criminal P.C. which provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 497 or Section 498, I.P.C. except on a complaint made by the husband of the woman, or in his absence, by some person who has care on his behalf at the time when the offence is committed. It was urged that where the husband complained of an offence under Section 366, I.P.C., and the Magistrate or the Judge found that the evidence did not warrant a conviction under that section, he is not justified in assuming that the complainant alternatively charged the accused of an offence under Section 498, and in convicting him of that offence. Reliance is placed on Bangaru Asari v. Emperor (1904) 27 Mad. 61, in which an accused person had been charged with an offence under Section 366, I.P.C. and the charge was subsequently amended to one under Section 498, I.P.C. of which the accused was convicted. The High Court of Madras set aside the conviction on the ground that, in the absence of a complaint by the husband of an offence under Section 498 the conviction was not maintainable. The husband had made a complaint, and it is argued that the case is clear authority for the proposition contended for in the present case. In my opinion it is easily distinguishable. The judgment is-brief, but in the facts of the case given by the editor it is noted that a complaint had been preferred by the woman's husband, in general terms, In which he stated that his wife had been missed, that he searched for and found her in the backyard of the accused who subsequently brought the girl out and locked himself in his house. The complaint concluded by stating that the woman had informed the complainant that the accused had carried her into his house and gagged her mouth and confined her in a room and threatened to stab her if she cried out.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1