AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We are disposed to agree with the Head Assistant Magistrate that the facts alleged do not amount to an offence tinder Section 211, Indian
Penal Code; but if the Magistrate believed as he apparently did believe, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the Magistrate should have
framed a charge of an offence punishable u/s 182(a) of the Indian Penal Code, as the facts clearly amount to an offence under that section, read it
must be in connection with the obligation imposed on the Village Magistrate by Section 45(c), Criminal Procedure Code.
The case of the Queen v. Periannan 4 M. 241 is not an authority against this view, since in that case the learned Judges only held that no offence
punishable u/s 182(6) was committed. We set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct him to make further inquiry into the alleged offence u/s
182(a) of the Indian Penal Code.