Queen-empress Vs. Lachmi Kant - Court Judgment
|Court||Allahabad High Court|
.....it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there..........penal code to pay a fine of rs. 50, or in default to undergo two months' simple imprisonment. lachmi kant appealed to the district magistrate, who upheld the conviction, but altered the sentence of fine to one of six months' rigorous imprisonment. the district magistrate endeavours to defend his action by stating that all that he aid was to change the 'form' of punishment. there cannot be the slightest doubt that the action of the district magistrate was in contravention of the provision contained in section 423(b)(3) of the code of criminal procedure, which provides that 'an appellate court may alter the nature of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.' i have no hesitation in holding that the alteration made by the district magistrate was in this case an enhancement of.....
1. This case has very properly been reported to this Court by the learned Sessions Judge of Gorakhpur. The following are the facts. One Lachmi Kant was convicted by a Magistrate of the second class of the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, and sentenced under the provisions of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code to pay a fine of Rs. 50, or in default to undergo two months' simple imprisonment. Lachmi Kant appealed to the District Magistrate, who upheld the conviction, but altered the sentence of fine to one of six months' rigorous imprisonment. The District Magistrate endeavours to defend his action by stating that all that he aid was to change the 'form' of punishment. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the action of the District Magistrate was in contravention of the provision contained in Section 423(b)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that 'an Appellate Court may alter the nature of the sentence, but not so as to enhance the same.' I have no hesitation in holding that the alteration made by the District Magistrate was in this case an enhancement of the sentence. In the case Queen-Empress V. Dansang Dada I.L.R. 18 Bom. 751, it was held that the action of a Sessions Judge, who on appeal altered a sentence of Rs. 51 fine to a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month, was illegal. This is a more glaring case of enhancement. I set aside the order of the District Magistrate in regard to the sentence passed on Lachmi Kant, and restore the sentence imposed by the Magistrate of the second class.