Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.17 seconds)Section 202 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 203 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dr. Dasarathi Mahapatra vs State Of Orissa on 12 December, 1968
In a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dasarathi Sarangi v. State of Orissa (1987) 1 Orissa LR 263, the certificate issued by the M.L.A. indicating the caste or tribe of the person was considered for the purpose of finding out its admissibility and collusiveness in a proceeding under Regulation 2 of 1956. It was held by their Lordships ;
Birendra Nath Chatterjee vs Umananda Mukherjee on 17 July, 1925
3. Mr. Panda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that in order to attract Section 197 of the India Penal Code, the certificates in question must be required by any law to be given and the person who issued the certificates has issued the same knowing or believing the same to be false in any material point. The expression "required by law" refers to some statutory requirements and there being no statutory requirement requiring the M.L.A. to issue certificates in question, Section 197, I.P.C. cannot have any application. The learned Counsel further contends that the entire materials on record as well as the ultimate conclusion of the learned Magistrate only establish one fact that the accused issued those certificates without specifying the caste or tribe to which they belonged. That by itself does not warrant the conclusion that the certificates are false in any material point and the accused issued the same knowing or believing them to be false and, therefore, Section 197, I.P.C. is not at all attracted. I find sufficient force in the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code came up for consideration in one of the earliest decisions of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Girendra Nath Chatteries v. Umananda Mukherjee AIR 1926 Cal 258 : 1926 (27) Cri LJ 182. In that case a certificate issued under Rule 18 of the Post Office Saving Bank Rules was under consideration. It was held by their Lordships that the certificate contemplated by Section 197 is a certificate which is required by law to be given or signed for the purpose of being used in evidence in the course of administration of justice. The certificate given under Post Office Savings Bank Rules cannot be construed to be a certificate either under any statute or any statutory rules made thereunder and therefore, to such a certificate, Section 197, I.P.C. cannot be attracted.
Prafulla Kumar Khara And Anr. vs Emperor on 11 December, 1941
The matter again came up for consideration before the-Calcutta High Court in the case of Prafulla Kumar v. Emperor AIR 1943 Cal 40 : 1943 (44) Cri LJ 292 whereunder a medical certificate came up for consideration. It was held by the Court that what Section 197 contemplates is that the certificate should be under some provision of law and be admissible in evidence as such certificate without further proof. A medical certificate is not per se evidence of the illness of a person certified to be ill therein and such a medical certificate, therefore, is not a certificate relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence. The issuing and user of a medical certificate in a criminal proceeding stating contrary to the fact that the accused was ill would render neither the accused nor the issuer of the certificate liable under Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code.
1