Skip to content


In Re: Dhondi Nathaji Raut - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 81 of 1921
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Bom368; (1921)23BOMLR846
AppellantIn Re: Dhondi Nathaji Raut
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 369-criminal court-order-review-no power to review.;where a sessions judge or a magistrate once sentences an offender to pay a fine but omits through oversight to pass a sentence in default of payment of fine, it is not open to him to pass the order subsequently. the proper course, in such a case, is to submit the proceedings to the high court and ask that court in its revisional jurisdiction to enhance the punishment by inflicting imprisonment in default of payment of fine. - .....and six months' rigorous imprisonment and rs. 50 in each case, sentences to run consecutively. the sessions judge omitted to pass a sentence in default of payment of fine. this oversight he purported to correct by a subsequent order of 29th september 1919 imposing three months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. this subsequent order is the subject of a revisional application submitted by the accused. the sessions judge had no power to review his order; for section 869, criminal procedure code, expressly prohibited him from doing so. this had been recognised in queen-empress v. queen empress v. ganesh ramkrishna i.l.r (1897) bom. 50. the proper course would have been for him to submit the proceeding to this court and ask this court in its revisional jurisdiction to.....
Judgment:

Pratt, J.

1. In this case the Additional Sessions Judge of Sho lapur convicted the accused on the 19th of August 1919 of the offences under Sections 409 and 467, Indian penal Code, and sentenced him to two years and six months' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 50 in each case, sentences to run consecutively. The Sessions Judge omitted to pass a sentence in default of payment of fine. This oversight he purported to correct by a subsequent order of 29th September 1919 imposing three months' rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine. This subsequent order is the subject of a revisional application submitted by the accused. The Sessions Judge had no power to review his order; for Section 869, Criminal Procedure Code, expressly prohibited him from doing so. This had been recognised in Queen-Empress v. queen Empress v. Ganesh Ramkrishna I.L.R (1897) Bom. 50. The proper course would have been for him to submit the proceeding to this Court and ask this Court in its revisional jurisdiction to enhance the punishment by inflicting imprisonment in default of payment of fine. This is what we can now do, and we accordingly reject this application.


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