Skip to content


Kanhai Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.795
AppellantKanhai Singh and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 367, 424 and 537 - judgment at variance with directions given by law--defect not cured. - - the judgment is clearly at variance with the directions given in sections 397 and 424 of the code of criminal procedure as regards the writing of judgment. the reply for the applicants is that the defects complained of have materially prejudiced them in the trial of their appeal......in revision under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure, questioning the judgment of the learned judge of moradabad, by which he upheld the conviction of the applicants made by the deputy magistrate. the only reason on which the applicants challenge the judgment of the lower court is that it is not in accordance with law. it appears from the judgment of the learned judge, that the notes that he made of the arguments of the counsel for the parties have to be considered as part of his judgment. he opens his judgment by saying that he has appended the notes of the argument for the parties. the learned judge does not discuss the evidence in the case nor refers to the witnesses whom he believes and on whose evidence he comes to the conclusion that applicants were guilty of the.....
Judgment:

Rafique, J.

1. This is an application in revision under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, questioning the judgment of the learned Judge of Moradabad, by which he upheld the conviction of the applicants made by the Deputy Magistrate. The only reason on which the applicants challenge the judgment of the lower Court is that it is not in accordance with law. It appears from the judgment of the learned Judge, that the notes that he made of the arguments of the Counsel for the parties have to be considered as part of his judgment. He opens his judgment by saying that he has appended the notes of the argument for the parties. The learned Judge does not discuss the evidence in the case nor refers to the witnesses whom he believes and on whose evidence he comes to the conclusion that applicants were guilty of the charges of which they were convicted. The judgment is clearly at variance with the directions given in Sections 397 and 424 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards the writing of judgment. It is suggested for the Crown that the defects in the judgment are cured by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The reply for the applicants is that the defects complained of have materially prejudiced them in the trial of their appeal. The judgment in question was not delivered by the learned Judge until a few months after the case had been argued before him. The tenor of the judgment shows thai, the case of the applicants was not present to his mind in all its aspects which had been presented to him at the time of argument. I think that the contention of the applicant is sound and must prevail. I allow it and set aside the order of the learned Judge, dated the 15th of August 1912, and direct that the appeal be re-heard and disposed of according to law.


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