High Courts

Anantha Goundan and Another vs King-Emperor

Madras High Court · Decided on 7 January 1904 · Citation: (1905) 15 MLJ 224

ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (CrPC) — Section 198 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 499
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 138 words
1.

Though there was an irregularity in the charge in so far as it states that the defamation was of the complainant, the husband, and not of the wives,

this is an error or irregularity in the charge which did not prejudice the accused or occasion a failure of justice. Having regard to explanation I to

Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, we think that the husband is a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 198 of the Criminal

Procedure Code in a case in which the imputation of unchastity is made and published in respect of his wife. Following the decision of this Court in

Chellam Naidu v. Ramasami ILR 14 M. 379 and of the High Court of Bombay in Chhotalal Lallubhai v. Nathabhai Bechar and Anr. I.L.R.25 B.

151 we dismiss the petition.