High CourtsDivision Bench(1929) 04 MAD CK 0040

Balasundaram

Madras High Court · Decided on 3 April 1929 · Citation: AIR 1930 Mad 191

HON’BLE JUDGES
Reilly, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 133 words

Reilly, J.—The information given in the charge sheet in this case is not very full; but I cannot say that it does not comply with the provisions

of Section 173, Criminal P.C. The contention that section requires that an abstract of the evidence to be given by each of the witnesses mentioned

should be entered in the report of charge sheet appears to me unsound. Nor is there in my opinion anything in the suggestion that this form of

charge sheet, prescribed by G.O. No. 3,487 Law (General), dated 16th October 1928, and published in the Port St. George Gazette dated 23rd

October 1928, could not legally be prescribed u/s 173, Criminal P.C., because it requires less details to be given than were required in the form

previously prescribed. This petition is dismissed.