Skip to content


Hamid Khan Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948All59
AppellantHamid Khan
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
.....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 state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised..........of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. the conviction of the appellant under section 379/511, penal code is correct. the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment with the aid of section 75, penal code is, however, illegal.2. section 75, penal code, provides for enhanced punishment when a person is convicted of an offence punishable under chap. 12 or chap. 17, penal code, with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards. the offence of attempt to commit theft does not fall under chap. 17, penal code. it really falls under chap. 23 of the code. it follows, therefore, that section 75, penal code cannot apply to persons who are convicted for attempting to commit theft. a similar view has been taken in the cases reported in empress of india v. ram dayal.....
Judgment:

Raghubar Dayal, J.

1. Hamid Khan appeals against his conviction under Section 379/511 read with Section 75, Penal Code, and a sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The conviction of the appellant under Section 379/511, Penal Code is correct. The sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment with the aid of Section 75, Penal Code is, however, illegal.

2. Section 75, Penal Code, provides for enhanced punishment when a person is convicted of an offence punishable under chap. 12 or Chap. 17, Penal Code, with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards. The offence of attempt to commit theft does not fall under Chap. 17, Penal Code. It really falls under chap. 23 of the Code. It follows, therefore, that Section 75, Penal Code cannot apply to persons who are convicted for attempting to commit theft. A similar view has been taken in the cases reported in Empress of India v. Ram Dayal ('81) 3 All. 773, Queen-Empress v. Ajudhia ('95) 17 All. 120, Queen-Empress v. Bharose ('95) 17 All. 123 and Brij Behari Lal v. Emperor : AIR1926All44 .

3. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal but modity the sentence to the effect that I reduce the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment passed by the Court below to a sentence of one year and a half rigorous imprisonment, the maximum punishment permissible under the law for an offence under Section 379/511, Penal Code.


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