Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Shiboo - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1923)ILR45All17
AppellantEmperor
RespondentShiboo
Excerpt:
.....board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the..........same time his father was convicted of a similar offence and received an appealable sentence.2. the father appealed and when the case came up before the learned sessions judge the parties to the case compounded. the learned judge made an order for composition.3. the boy had no right of appeal and the learned sessions judge was therefore asked to deal with the case in revision. he came to the conclusion that it was not possible for him to deal with the matter in this way and he refers to a ruling of this court--emperor v. husain khan (1016) i.l.r. 39 all. 293. that ruling, however, does not seem to me to affect the matter which i have now before me.4. section 439 authorizes the high court to exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal, and if a court of appeal can allow the.....
Judgment:

Lindsay, J.

1. I think this application must be allowed. The applicant is a young boy named Shiboo, who was convicted on a charge tinder Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to receive 10 stripes. At the same time his father was convicted of a similar offence and received an appealable sentence.

2. The father appealed and when the case came up before the learned Sessions Judge the parties to the case compounded. The learned Judge made an order for composition.

3. The boy had no right of appeal and the learned Sessions Judge was therefore asked to deal with the case in revision. He came to the conclusion that it was not possible for him to deal with the matter in this way and he refers to a ruling of this Court--Emperor v. Husain Khan (1016) I.L.R. 39 All. 293. That ruling, however, does not seem to me to affect the matter which I have now before me.

4. Section 439 authorizes the High Court to exercise any of the powers conferred on a court of appeal, and if a court of appeal can allow the composition of an offence, it follows that the High Court can allow the same in revision too. There is nothing therefore to prevent the parties from compounding the offence. On the merits the learned Judge was obviously of the opinion that the case ought to be compromised but he thought that he had no authority in law to permit a composition.

5. In this connection I may refer the learned Judge to the ruling in Emperor v. Ram Piyari (1909) I.L.R. 32 All. 153. This is a fit case in which composition ought to be allowed as the parties have made up their differences. I allow the application and set aside the conviction and sentence on Shiboo, minor.


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