Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Keshavlal Girdhar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal application for Revision No. 260 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR144
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKeshavlal Girdhar
Excerpt:
.....of theft: and four previous convictions were proved against him. the sessions judge, instead of passing sentence upon him, directed that the passing of sentence should ho postponed on the accused's furnishing security for good behaviour. if the accused failed to reform himself, the sentence was to be five years' rigorous imprisonment; but if ho behaved well during the six months, then the passing of sentence would be postponed for a year and a half on same terms. at the end of the term, the accused was to be bound over for three more years on the same condition; and if he continued to be of good behaviour for full five years, the passing of sentence was to be postponed sine die. the government of bombay appealed against the order :;that the order was illegal; for (1) granting that it.....1. the order is illegal. the sessions judge puts it on the ground that in effect he is only ' adjourning the proceedings at present' by not passing a sentence but instead calling on the accused to furnish security. in the first place, if it is an adjournment-which it is not, we think- no court has inherent power to adjourn the passing of sentence in this way for an indefinite period and the sessions judge has exercised his discretion unreasonably. secondly, the order cannot be treated as one of adjournment because the sessions judge has, as a matter of fact, directed security to be given. such an order is legally and practically one of sentence. the order is quashed and the accused sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.
Judgment:

1. The order is illegal. The Sessions Judge puts it on the ground that in effect he is only ' adjourning the proceedings at present' by not passing a sentence but instead calling on the accused to furnish security. In the first place, if it is an adjournment-which it is not, we think- no Court has inherent power to adjourn the passing of sentence in this way for an indefinite period and the Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion unreasonably. Secondly, the order cannot be treated as one of adjournment because the Sessions Judge has, as a matter of fact, directed security to be given. Such an order is legally and practically one of sentence. The order is quashed and the accused sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.


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