Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Gopal Das and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1919)ILR61All217
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGopal Das and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 423 - honorary magistrates--judgment of bench signed by one member only--appeal--order returning judgment to be signed by the other member of the bench which had heard the case. - .....on a previous occasion (and as i find on going through the record that on two previous occasions) lala phul chand, whose judgment was before him, had, when he found that he could not proceed alone, refused to proceed with the case at all. the proper inference from this is that if he had been alone on the 27th of june, 1918, he would have, as on the two previous occasions, adjourned the case and refused to go on further with it alone. there is nothing to show that on the 27th of june, 1918, lala phul chand was sitting alone on the bench. the presumption is that there was another magistrate sitting with him and that (as often happens in this court) lala phul chand delivered the judgment and signed it. the more proper course would have been for him to hand the judgment over to his.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. The District Magistrate of Muttra having before him an appeal from the judgment of an Honorary Magistrate of the second class of Brindaban found that the case was one which had been tried by a Bench of Magistrates. The chief argument advanced before him was that the judgment was signed and delivered by a single member of the Bench and that this was illegal. He then adopted what seems to me to Be a very suitable and sensible order and in no way opposed to Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He did not reverse the finding and sentence, he did not alter the finding maintaining the sentence, he did not reduce the sentence, he did not alter the nature of the sentence. He found that on a previous occasion (and as I find on going through the record that on two previous occasions) Lala Phul Chand, whose judgment was before him, had, when he found that he could not proceed alone, refused to proceed with the case at all. The proper inference from this is that if he had been alone on the 27th of June, 1918, he would have, as on the two previous occasions, adjourned the case and refused to go on further with it alone. There is nothing to show that on the 27th of June, 1918, Lala Phul Chand was sitting alone on the Bench. The presumption is that there was another Magistrate sitting with him and that (as often happens in this Court) Lala Phul Chand delivered the judgment and signed it. The more proper course would have been for him to hand the judgment over to his colleague and to have got the colleague to sign it. To prevent any difficulty on this score the appellate court made an incidental order which it considered just and proper. It sent the case back that the judgment might be signed by the colleague. I can see nothing wrong in this order. If there was no colleague present, or if that colleague dissented from the judgment, he will refuse to sign it, or Lala Phul Chand will return the proceeding saying that there was no colleague with him at the time when he delivered the judgment. It will be time then for the appellate court to consider what will be the proper order to be passed in the case. Let the proceedings be returned to the appellate court.


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