High CourtsDivision Bench(1892) 09 MAD CK 0016

Queen-Empress vs V. Govinda Pillai

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 September 1892 · Citation: (1893) ILR (Mad) 235

HON’BLE JUDGES
Handley, J · Arthur J.H. Collins, 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 · 139 words
1.

We think that the Sessions Judge is right in holding that the principle of the decision in Manjaya v. Sesha Shetti ILR 11 Mad. 477 is applicable

to the case of persons making statements in the course of an investigation by a Police officer. Such persons are bound by Section 161, Criminal

Procedure Code, to answer truly all questions put to them, except such as tend to criminate themselves, and are therefore entitled to the protection

which the law gives to witnesses. Accused, in the present case, made the statement, on which the defamation is laid in answer to a question by the

Police Constable, and we think, under the principles laid down in the above decision, his statement is a privileged communication.

2.

The conviction is set aside, and the fine, if paid, is to be refunded.