Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Chokhu Yesu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 82 of 1934
Judge
Reported inAIR1934Bom462; (1934)36BOMLR963; 153Ind.Cas.34
AppellantEmperor
RespondentChokhu Yesu
Excerpt:
.....run consecutively.;the explanation to section 224 of the indian penal code does not require that a sentence of imprisonment under that section must be made to run consecutively to a sentence imposed for the main offence of which the accused has been convicted. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either belongs to or does not belongs to schedule caste or scheduled tribe. after final opinion is formed, it is..........the learned magistrate directed that the substantive sentences should run concurrently, and the district magistrate takes the view that that is illegal, in view of the explanation to section 224. that explanation, provides that the punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted. in my opinion, there having been in the present case a distinct sentence under section 224, the explanation has been complied with. there is nothing in the explanation to require that a sentence of imprisonment under section 224 must be made to run consecutively to a sentence imposed for the main offence of which the accused was convicted. a concurrent.....
Judgment:

John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.

1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Poona in which he asks us to interfere with the sentence imposed by the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona. The accused was convicted under Sections 353 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate sentenced him for each of the offences to rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 25. There was, therefore, a separate and distinct sentence under each of the two sections. But the learned Magistrate directed that the substantive sentences should run concurrently, and the District Magistrate takes the view that that is illegal, in view of the explanation to Section 224. That explanation, provides that the punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted. In my opinion, there having been in the present case a distinct sentence under Section 224, the explanation has been complied with. There is nothing in the explanation to require that a sentence of imprisonment under Section 224 must be made to run consecutively to a sentence imposed for the main offence of which the accused was convicted. A concurrent sentence is none the less an additional sentence. It might happen that on appeal the conviction for the main offence was set aside and the conviction under Section 224 was affirmed, in which case a separate, though concurrent, sentence under the latter section would become operative. In my opinion, the view of the City Magistrate was right, and the view of the learned District Magistrate is wrong, and we must, therefore, discharge the rule.


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