Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Mewa Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1926All178; 90Ind.Cas.917
AppellantEmperor
RespondentMewa Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....usual period of one week, which is allowed to enable an accused to engage a pleader to support his jail appeal, i took up the jail appeals on 27th of june for disposal, and after perusing the judgment and going through the record rejected them summarily. if an appeal through a mukhtar had been presented after the disposal of the jail appeals, then according to the ruling of the hon'ble chief justice and the hon'ble mr. justice piggott the subsequent appeal would have been rejected. but in this case an appeal through a mukhtar was presented before the jail appeals were received, heard and decided, and it was through the mistake of the office that the institution of the appeal through mukhtar was not brought to my notice when i decided the jail appeals. under section 421(1) of the criminal.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Daniels, J.

1. I have the honour to report for the information of the Hon'ble High Court that a criminal appeal on behalf of four persons: Mewa Ram, Khiali Ram, Sobha Ram and Chunni Lal, was presented in this Court on 12th June 1925 through a mukhtar along with an application for bail. As I had been permitted by the Hon'ble High Court to avail of the first half of the vacation, the application for bail, together with the appeal, was sent to the Sessions and Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, who was to receive and pass orders on urgent criminal applications of this Judgeship during that period. The papers reached Bareilly on the 13th June, but the postman delivered the envelope containing them to the Subordinate Judge on. 6th July 1925 when the Courts re-opened. The Sessions and Subordinate Judge, Bareilly, sent the papers to me on 7th and I received them on the 8th July. On 16th June four appeals on behalf of the very same four persons were received through jail. Through mistake of my office it was not brought to my notice that an appeal through a mukhtar on behalf of the very same persons was presented on 12th June and was sent to Bareilly with an application for bail. After the expiry of the usual period of one week, which is allowed to enable an accused to engage a pleader to support his jail appeal, I took up the jail appeals on 27th of June for disposal, and after perusing the judgment and going through the record rejected them summarily. If an appeal through a mukhtar had been presented after the disposal of the jail appeals, then according to the ruling of the Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Piggott the subsequent appeal would have been rejected. But in this case an appeal through a mukhtar was presented before the jail appeals were received, heard and decided, and it was through the mistake of the office that the institution of the appeal through mukhtar was not brought to my notice when I decided the jail appeals. Under Section 421(1) of the Criminal P.C. the appeal presented by the mukhtar cannot be disposed of without hearing him.

2. I, therefore, beg to suggest that, if the Hon'ble Court thinks fit, my order rejecting the jail appeals summarily be set aside and I may be permitted to hear the appeal presented by the mukhtar, or any other order, which the Hon'ble Court thinks fit may be passed.

3. The clerk of the office, who is at fault, is being punished and the postal authorities are being asked to make enquiry into the long delay made in delivery of the envelope to the addressee at Bareilly.


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