Skip to content


Bhanwar Alias Chiranji Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in54Ind.Cas.624
AppellantBhanwar Alias Chiranji
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredBahawal v. Emperor
Excerpt:
penal code, (act xiv of 1860), section 75 - previous conviction in native state, effect of--enhanced punishment, whether can be inflicted. - .....j.1. bhanwar has been convicted by the learned sessions judge of agra under section 454, indian penal code,, and under the provisions of that section, read with section 75, indian penal code, has been sentenced to five 'years' rigorous imprisonment. there can be no doubt whatever on the evidence, which was believed by both the assessors and the learned judge, that the accused did commit the offence with which he was charged : but with regard to the application of section 75. i have great doubt. the accused admits two previous oouviotions, one under section 411, indian penal code, and another under section 407. both these convictions were made by the dig nizamat in the bharatpur state. i have no information as to the nature or constitution of this court. the question is whether section.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. Bhanwar has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Agra under Section 454, Indian Penal Code,, and under the provisions of that section, read with Section 75, Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to five 'years' rigorous imprisonment. There can be no doubt whatever on the evidence, which was believed by both the Assessors and the learned Judge, that the accused did commit the offence with which he was charged : but with regard to the application of Section 75. I have great doubt. The accused admits two previous oouviotions, one under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, and another under Section 407. Both these convictions were made by the Dig Nizamat in the Bharatpur State. I have no information as to the nature or constitution of this Court. The question is whether Section 75, as amended by Act III of 1910, contemplates a conviction by a Court of this kind. The point was considered in Bahawal v. Emperor 20 Ind. Cas. 1007 : 17 P.R. 1913 Cr. : 14 Cr.L.J. 527 : 42 P.W.R. 1913 Cr. : 329 P.L.R. 1913 and it was held that a previous conviction held by a Criminal Court in Bikanir could not come within the scope of the section. Under the circumstances I think Section 75 is not shown to be applicable in this case. Saving regard to all the circumstances of the case, a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment will meet the ends of justice. With this modification I dismiss the appeal.


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