Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Sinha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All135
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentSinha
Excerpt:
high court's powers of revision - criminal procedure code, section 439--revision case in which term of imprisonment has been served. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which..........with the latter. and cases in which such interference should not be summarily refused may easily be supposed, as, for instance, where a man's status is altered by his conviction, (as in convictions under chapter xii or xvii of the indian penal code, or under the common gambling act), or where, as hero, the convict's prospect of future employment depend in a great measure upon the existence or the annulment of the conviction.2. the learned judge then proceeded to deal with the application on the merits.
Judgment:

Duthoit, J.

1. The applicant has served his term of imprisonment, and a preliminary objection is urged by the learned Junior Government Pleader to the effect that as, since the application was filed, the effect of the finding of the Magistrate has become complete, this Court cannot interfere with that finding. I am unable to admit the force of this contention. I can find nothing in the terms of the law to prevent this Court from interfering with a conviction, even though, in consequence of the expiry of the sentence, it may not be possible to interfere with the latter. And cases in which such interference should not be summarily refused may easily be supposed, as, for instance, where a man's status is altered by his conviction, (as in convictions under Chapter XII or XVII of the Indian Penal Code, or under the Common Gambling Act), or where, as hero, the convict's prospect of future employment depend in a great measure upon the existence or the annulment of the conviction.

2. The learned Judge then proceeded to deal with the application on the merits.


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