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
9 paragraphs · 222 wordsAbdur Rahim, J.—There can be no doubt that the facts alleged against the accused do not constitute an offence under Sections 419 and
511 Indian Penal Code, as it is not alleged that his attempt to get himself re-instated in the post of the Karnam by the production of a certificate of
having passed a certain examination and representing that the certificate referred to him while in fact it referred to another man bearing the same
name caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the officer to whom the representation was made either in body, mind, reputation or
property within the moaning of Section 415, Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence must be set aside and the fact that the accused
pleaded guilty to the charge can, of course, make no difference I am not sure that the facts proved might not amount to an offence u/s 182, Indian
Penal Code, as held in the similar case of Queen Empress v. Ganesh Khanderaso and Ganesh Doulath 13 B. 506 But having regard to the term of
imprisonment already undergone by the accused, the interest of justice do not require that the question, whether he could be properly convicted
under any other section of the Penal Code, should be considered. The accused must, therefore, be immediately set at liberty.
