Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Keshavlal Virchand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 19 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR503
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKeshavlal Virchand
Excerpt:
.....of non-appeasable sentence-adding to sentence to make it appeasable-appeal-sessions judge-jurisdiction. ;a magistrate passed at first a non-appealable sentence on the accused ; but at the request of the accused he shortly after enhanced the sentence passed so as to make it appealable. the accused then appealed to the sessions judge, but he dismissed the appeal on the ground that the sentence first passed was not-appealable and the magistrate had no jurisdiction to enhance the sentence once passed by him. in revision : ;that the sessions judge committed an error in holding that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal; for though the magistrate had no jurisdiction to alter the sentence in the way he had done, yet for the purposes of the sessions judge's jurisdiction, so..........after he has once delivered it and signed it. but for the purposes of the learned sessions judge's jurisdiction, so far as this appeal was concerned, that was the very mistake which the learned judge was called upon to correct by way of appeal; and therefore, the appeal was within his jurisdiction to that extent at any rate. i must, therefore, make the rule absolute and remit the appeal to the sessions court for disposal according to law.heaton, j. 2. i agree. the sentence which was actually imposed which, unless altered, the jailor will carry out, was the sentence of one month and one day's imprisonment. it is an appealable sentence; and when an appeal is presented that appeal ought to be heard. it may be, and it is said in this case that it is so, that that sentence was.....
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. The Sessions Judge has clearly committed an error in holding that he has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, because of the alteration in the sentence, made by the Magistrate, after he had delivered judgments. It is true that a Magistrate has no jurisdiction to alter his judgment and the sentence, after he has once delivered it and signed it. But for the purposes of the learned Sessions Judge's jurisdiction, so far as this appeal was concerned, that was the very mistake which the learned Judge was called upon to correct by way of appeal; and therefore, the appeal was within his jurisdiction to that extent at any rate. I must, therefore, make the rule absolute and remit the appeal to the Sessions Court for disposal according to law.

Heaton, J.

2. I agree. The sentence which was actually imposed which, unless altered, the jailor will carry out, was the sentence of one month and one day's imprisonment. It is an appealable sentence; and when an appeal is presented that appeal ought to be heard. It may be, and it is said in this case that it is so, that that sentence was illegally imposed. If so, all the more reason for taking it up to the appellate Court and for having it corrected by that Court. Therefore, I think that the Sessions Judge was wrong in declining to hear the appeal, and that he was bound to hear and dispose of it according to law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //