Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Ram Baran Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR21All25
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentRam Baran Singh
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 395 - whipping--sentence of imprisonment in lieu of whipping--powers of magistrate. - - section 33, which relates to the powers of a magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment in default of fine, distinctly provides that the imprisonment awarded under that section may be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term awardable by the magistrate under section 32. the absence of a similar provision in section 395 and the provision of the second paragraph of that section, to which i have referred above, leave no room for doubt that the sentence of imprisonment awarded in lieu of whipping cannot be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term which the magistrate was competent to award. the..........whipping. the magistrate thereupon sentenced him to 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment in lieu of whipping. the magistrate was evidently acting under the powers conferred on him by section 395 of the code of criminal procedure. under that section, upon the offender being found not to be in a fit state of health to undergo the sentence of whipping, the court may either remit the sentence of whipping, or may, in lieu of whipping, sentence him to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, which may be in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced for the same offence. but this term of imprisonment, as held in queen-empress v. sheodin i.l.r. 11 all. 308, is a substantive sentence of imprisonment. that being so, the magistrate was not competent.....
Judgment:

Banerji, J.

1. In this case one Ram Baran Singh was convicted by a Magistrate of the first class under Sections 454 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to receive 30 stripes. He was medically certified not to be in a fit state of health to undergo the sentence of whipping. The Magistrate thereupon sentenced him to 6 months' additional rigorous imprisonment in lieu of whipping. The Magistrate was evidently acting under the powers conferred on him by Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that section, upon the offender being found not to be in a fit state of health to undergo the sentence of whipping, the Court may either remit the sentence of whipping, or may, in lieu of whipping, sentence him to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, which may be in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced for the same offence. But this term of imprisonment, as held in Queen-Empress v. Sheodin I.L.R. 11 All. 308, is a substantive sentence of imprisonment. That being so, the Magistrate was not competent to sentence the accused to imprisonment in lieu of whipping for a period which was in excess of the maximum term of two years, for which, under Section 32, he could order the imprisonment of the accused. This is clear from the second paragraph of Section 395, which declares that under that section a Court is not authorised to inflict imprisonment for a term exceeding that which the said Court is competent to inflict. Section 33, which relates to the powers of a Magistrate to pass a sentence of imprisonment in default of fine, distinctly provides that the imprisonment awarded under that section may be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term awardable by the Magistrate under Section 32. The absence of a similar provision in Section 395 and the provision of the second paragraph of that section, to which I have referred above, leave no room for doubt that the sentence of imprisonment awarded in lieu of whipping cannot be in addition to a substantive sentence of imprisonment for the maximum term which the Magistrate was competent to award. The sentence of additional imprisonment in lieu of whipping passed in this case was therefore clearly illegal and I set it aside. Ram Baran's bail will be discharged.


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