Skip to content


King-emperor Vs. Phakkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All472
AppellantKing-emperor
RespondentPhakkar
Excerpt:
- - 1. phakkar had been ordered to execute a bond with two sureties for maintaining good behaviour under section 110 of the code of criminal procedure. this order was affirmed by the sessions judge, but the accused failed to comply with the said order the magistrate accordingly directed that he should be kept in prison to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years including three months solitary confinement unless and until he executed the bond and furnished the sureties asked for......that he should be kept in prison to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years including three months solitary confinement unless and until he executed the bond and furnished the sureties asked for.2. the order directing the accused to undergo solitary confinement is obviously without jurisdiction. the power to impose solitary confinement is conferred by section 73 of the indian penal code, but that section applies only where a person has been convicted of an offence under the indian penal code and is not applicable to convictions tinder other laws, unless expressly made so. the order passed against the accused was under the code of criminal procedure which does not permit a solitary confinement.3. i accordingly modify the order passed and direct that the words 'which will include.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. Phakkar had been ordered to execute a bond with two sureties for maintaining good behaviour under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This order was affirmed by the Sessions Judge, but the accused failed to comply with the said order The Magistrate accordingly directed that he should be kept in prison to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years including three months solitary confinement unless and until he executed the bond and furnished the sureties asked for.

2. The order directing the accused to undergo solitary confinement is obviously without jurisdiction. The power to impose solitary confinement is conferred by Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code, but that section applies only where a person has been convicted of an offence under the Indian Penal Code and is not applicable to convictions tinder other laws, unless expressly made so. The order passed against the accused was under the Code of Criminal Procedure which does not permit a solitary confinement.

3. I accordingly modify the order passed and direct that the words 'which will include three months solitary confinement' be deleted from the order.


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