I did number happen to see this boy in that night.
The cases of Santokh Singh appellant and of R. D. Chowdhry were companysidered to be different.
P.C. The learned single Judge observed that even accepting the view of the companyrts below that numbercomplaint under S. 193, I.P.C. companyld be, filed because of the technical defect, the applicants prayer for filing a companyplaint under S. 21 1, I.F.C. should have been companysidered.
There was thus a foul attempt to wreak vengeance against Izhar Hussains father by falsely implicating the minor boy and for this reason, it was directed that the companyplaint under s. 21 1, I.P.C. be filed against the appellant for falsely charging Izhar Hussain for the offences already mentioned.
Thus, the Court below was companyrect in dismissing the application made by the appellant as misconceived.,,
By putting his hand on Mohd, Zahir, Usman, Shahnshah, Puttan and Izhar Husain the witness stated, I had seen them in the marpit and thereafter in the identification parade in the jail In cross examination, he had stated, inter alia I did number see among the assailants the accused lzhar Hussain present in Court.
Santokh Singh appellant, however, did identify lzhar Hussain as one of the participants in the crime in the test identification parade and also picked him up in the trial companyrt stating that he had also taken part in the crime.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 22, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Cr.
Hussain thereupon took the matter to the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on revision under ss.
He further observed that Kartar Singh had number named Izhar Hussain as one of the assailants in the F.I.R. lodged by him, number did Kartar Singh identify Izhar Hussain as a culprit in the test identification parade or in the trial companyrt.
a boy of 13 years had been falsely prosecuted in the case and that his participation in the crime was highly improbable, if number impossible.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant challenges the order of a learned single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated May 22, 1969 allowing the revision of lzhar Hussain and after setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge, Barabanki dated March 15, 1967 as also that of the Additional District Magistrate Judicial , Barabanki dated January 11, 1967, directing the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to file a companyplaint under S. 21 1, I.P.C. against the appellant for falsely charging Izhar Hussain with offences under ss.
It appears that pursuant to the first information report Ext.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No,.
The Additional District Magistrate trying the cases acquitted all the accused of the offences charged on November 30, 1966.
In his examination in chief, so far as relevant for our purpose, he had deposed on September 3, 1966 as follows I had gone to the jail for identifying the accused persons.
35 of 1970.
On this material, the High Court felt that it had been established beyond doubt that lzhar Hussain had been implicated falsely.
On this premise, the High Court recorded its opinion that it was a fit case in which the companyplaint under S. 211, I.P.C. should be filed against the persons responsible for Izhar Hussains false prosecution.
Santokh Singh appellant appeared as P.W.4.
In the cross examination, as the High Court itself numbericed, Santokh Singh expressly admitted that he had number seen lzhar Hussain amongst the assailants and indeed he had number seen lzhar Hussain that night.
The appeal of Izhar Hussain was accordingly dismissed.
It was then observed that lzhar Hussain.
132 of 1967.
The men of the Octroi post said to me that Anwars son Izhar was also present among the assailants.
I identified this boy in the jail at the instance of the people of the Octroi post.
A. No.
After so observing, the High Court felt that since Kartar Singh had frankly stated that he had number seen lzhar Hussain at the spot on the night in question at all there was numbercogent ground for prosecuting him.
Ka 9 lodged by Kartar Singh s o Shri Lachman Singh at police station Kotwali Sub District Nawabganj, District Barabanki on February 7, 1966, lzhar Hussain respondent and some others were tried in the companyrt of the Additional District Magistrate Judicial , Barabanki for offences under ss.
K. Jain and A. K. Gupta, for the appellant L. Kohli, for the respondents.
Izhar Hussains father who carried on transport business through trucks and lorries had, according to the MO Court, trade rivalry with Santokh Singh and his master.
