Skip to content


Udit NaraIn and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All64(1); 54Ind.Cas.172
AppellantUdit NaraIn and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 356 - failure to record evidence in vernacular, effect of--irregularity--trial, whether vitiated. - .....because no vernacular record of the evidence was prepared as is required by section 356. the learned sessions judge says: 'the objection does not seem to have any force. section 355 of the code of criminal procedure empowered the magistrate to make a memorandum of the sub-stance of the evidence of each witness, as the offence was one of those mentioned in clause (d), sub-section (1) of section 260 the procedure adopted by him was in full conformity with the provisions of law.' in my opinion the learned sessions judge was mistaken. section 355 applies to summons cases. this was not a summons' case, as shown by the fact that the sentence of 8 months' rigorous imprisonment was passed. secondly, clause (d) of section 260 does not apply, because the property said to be stolen was a sack.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. Two persons, Udit Narain and Mahadeo, were convicted by a Magistrate of the First Class under Section 380 and sentenced to 8 months' rigorous imprisonment. They appealed : their appeal was dismissed. Among the grounds taken in the lower Court it was urged that the trial was irregular because no vernacular record of the evidence was prepared as is required by Section 356. The learned Sessions Judge says: 'the objection does not seem to have any force. Section 355 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowered the Magistrate to make a memorandum of the sub-stance of the evidence of each witness, as the offence was one of those mentioned in Clause (d), Sub-section (1) of Section 260 the procedure adopted by him was in full conformity with the provisions of law.' In my opinion the learned Sessions Judge was mistaken. Section 355 applies to summons cases. This was not a summons' case, as shown by the fact that the sentence of 8 months' rigorous imprisonment was passed. Secondly, Clause (d) of Section 260 does not apply, because the property said to be stolen was a sack of rice which probably was worth more than Rs. 50 : in any case, as required by Section 268(f), the value of the sack of rice has not been given, it seems to me that I have no alternative but to set aside the conviction and order a fresh trial according to law. I order accordingly.


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