Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bhanwar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All63(1); (1920)ILR42All136
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBhanwar
Excerpt:
act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), section 75 - previous conviction by a court in a native state. - .....the indian penal: code and under the provisions of that section read with section 75 of the indian penal code has been sentenced to five year' rigorous imprisonment. there can be no doubt whatever on the evidence, which was believed by both the assessors and the learned judge, that the accused did commit the offence with which he was charged; but with regard to the application of section 75 i have great doubt. the accused admits two previous convictions, one under section 411, indian penal code, and another under section 407 both these convictions were made by 'the digh nizamat in the bharatpur state. i have no information as to the nature or constitution of this court. the question is whether section 75, as amended by act iii of 1910, contemplates a conviction by a court of this kind......
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. Bhanwar has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra under Section 454 of the Indian Penal: Code and under the provisions of that section read with Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code has been sentenced to five year' rigorous imprisonment. There can be no doubt whatever on the evidence, which was believed by both the assessors and the learned Judge, that the accused did commit the offence with which he was charged; but with regard to the application of Section 75 I have great doubt. The accused admits two previous convictions, one under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and another under Section 407 Both these convictions were made by 'the Digh Nizamat in the Bharatpur State. I have no information as to the nature or constitution of this Court. The question is whether Section 75, as amended by Act III of 1910, contemplates a conviction by a court of this kind. The point was considered in Bahawal v. King-Emperor (1913) 48 Punj. Rec. Cr.J. 64, and it was held that a previous conviction held by a Criminal Court in Bikaner could not come within the scope of the section. Under the circumstances I think Section 75 is not shown to be applicable in this case. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. With this modification I dismiss the appeal.


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