Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.43 seconds)
Parwari vs Emperor on 3 January, 1919 cites

Narayan Manjaya And Anr. vs Shri Ramchandra Devasthan, Moktesars ... on 18 February, 1903

As to the statements contained in Exhibits I and J, he found it difficult to say positively how those statements came to be made. Eventually, however, he deposed that they were statements made in consequence of action taken by him under Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is not a revice in Police work, for he says he has been Sub Inspector for five years but he left it rather doubtful whether he did intentionally and Knowingly act under the authority of Section 155 of the Code or of some authority given him by the Police Manual. If the statements resulted from action taken under Section 154 or under Section 155, they are privileged statements, and as such, should not have been used as evidence at all see Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the case of Manjaya v. Sesha Shetti 11 M. 477 : 1 Weir 586 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N. S.)
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Queen-Empress vs V. Govinda Pillai on 1 September, 1892

332 and also Queen-Empress v. Govinda Pillai 16 M. 235 : 1 Weir 587 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 871. The Madras High Court, is very positive and consistent upon the view that statements under these circumstances are' privileged and cannot be made the foundation of a charge of defamation. I do not know what authority the Police Manual may give, but whatever authority it may give if it does give any authority that cannot override the law. It is difficult to understand how the Sub Inspector could have taken these statements at all. The probability is that he took them out of prurient curiosity and not in the course of any investigation made under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I mention this, as what I am about to say might otherwise be considered obiter dictum.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 Next