Skip to content


Sardar Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All693
AppellantSardar
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- - this omission on the part of the sub-divisional magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial.thom, j.1. the applicant has been convicted under section 20, treasure trove act, 1878, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. it appears that the sub-divisional magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused and then proceeded to try it himself without having in accordance with the terms of section 191, criminal p.c., informed the applicant that he was entitled to have the case tried by another court. this omission on the part of the sub-divisional magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial. in the result the conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside and as he is on bail he need not surrender to his bail.
Judgment:

Thom, J.

1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 20, Treasure Trove Act, 1878, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused and then proceeded to try it himself without having in accordance with the terms of Section 191, Criminal P.C., informed the applicant that he was entitled to have the case tried by another Court. This omission on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial. In the result the conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside and as he is on bail he need not surrender to his bail.


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