Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M.CT.MUTHIAH & 2 OTHERS versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS &, ANOTHER

Decided
20 December 1955
Judges listed
SUDHI RANJAN DAS (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1955] 2 S.C.R. 1247 · 1955 INSC 80

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Bv THE CoURT : In accordance with the Judgment of the majority the petition is allowed and. it is ordered that a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the report of the Income-tax Investigation Commission dated the 26th August 1952 and the assessment orders of the Income-Tax Officer for the y.ears . 1940-41, 1941"42 and 1943-44 to 1948-49, and that a writ of prohibition do i$sue against the resP,ondents restraining them from implementing the findings. of the Investigation Commission with r~g;µ-~ to the year 1942-43. The respondents do pay the peritioners' costs of their petition.

pp. 1284–1285

AHER RAJA K.HIMA

p. 1285

v. THE STATE OF SAURASHTRA-

p. 1285

and

p. 1285

Arr JJ l

p. 1285

Appeal against Acqu#tal....-Scqpe of-PoU}ers of Court-Guiding principles-Code Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), s. 417

p. 1285

and JJ,

p. 1285

dissenting). It well settled that the High' Court should not set aside an order of acquittal under 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure simply because it differs from the trial Court as to the appreciation of the evidence ; there must be substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. · Whete the trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference is not justifiable unless there are really· strong reasons for holding otherwise.

p. 1285

Amar Singh State of Punjab ([1953] S.C.R. 418) and Surajpal Singh State ( f19521 S.C.R. 193), referred

p. 1285

The accused in a criminal case must be given the benefit of every reasonable doubt and, therefore when he offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, althougl;i he cannot prove it, that explanation should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that it is false.

p. 1285

Conseq11ently,. in a case where an accused person, charged under

p. 1285

302 and 447 of the lndian Penal Code, repudiated his confession at the earliest opportunity as having been made under Police threats administered to at night while jail custody and there was evidence to show that the Police had access to hiru there, and there was nothing to displace his statement that he was threatened by them, the finding of the Sessions Judge that the t:onfession was not voluntary in character was fair and reasonaok and in the absence of auy compellihg reason the High Court shotild not have set aside the order of acquittal.

p. 1285