Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Jhabdey Alias Jhao Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All286; 59Ind.Cas.383
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJhabdey Alias Jhao Lal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 120(1) - accused bound over in security after sentence for another offence--failure to furnish security--imprisonment in default, when to commence. - - while he was so out on bail, proceedings were taken against him under section 110, criminal procedure code, and on the 27th october 1919 be was ordered to furnish a security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. ..the period for which such security is required shall commence on the expiration of such sentence,'are clear and the detention on failure to furnish sonority could not be deemed to have commenced before the sentence under section 117 of the indian penal code has been served out......mainpuri in the case of jhabdey alias jhao lal. he was convicted under section 147 of the indian penal code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months on the 12th august 1919. he appealed against the conviction and was out on bail during the pendency of the appeal. while he was so out on bail, proceedings were taken against him under section 110, criminal procedure code, and on the 27th october 1919 be was ordered to furnish a security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. the required security was not furnished and he was ordered to be rigorously imprisoned for one year until and unless the security demanded were furnished sooner. jhabdey appealed against both the orders aforesaid. his appeal in the section 147 case was dismissed on the 10th november 1919.....
Judgment:

Gokal Prasad, J.

1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri in the case of Jhabdey alias Jhao Lal. He was convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two months on the 12th August 1919. He appealed against the conviction and was out on bail during the pendency of the appeal. While he was so out on bail, proceedings were taken against him under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, and on the 27th October 1919 be was ordered to furnish a security to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. The required security was not furnished and he was ordered to be rigorously imprisoned for one year until and unless the security demanded were furnished sooner. Jhabdey appealed against both the orders aforesaid. His appeal in the Section 147 case was dismissed on the 10th November 1919 and that against the order under Section 110 was dismissed on the 14th November 1919. On the 10th December 1919 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed that as Jhabdey was at that time undergoing a sentence under Section 110, Criminal Pro-cedure Code, the remaining portion of his sentence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code should take effect on the expiry of the sentence under Section 110.

2. It appears that the sureties came forward on the 9th August 1920, and the present Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who has succeeded the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who convicted Jhabdey under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and who had also passed the orders under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, sent for Jhabdey from jail for the purpose of being released. He was then informed by the Jailor that the accused should not be released as he had to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment as directed by the Court on previous occasion. The present District Magistrate of Mainpuri has reported the matter to this Court being of opinion that the order of the former Sab-Divisional Magistrate was, under the circumstances, illegal as being in contravention of Section 120, Clause (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. I think the learned District Magistrate is right. The words in Section 120, Clause (1)--'If any person in respect of whom an order requiring security is made under Section 106 or Section 118, is, at the time such order is made, sentenced to...the period for which such security is required shall commence on the expiration of such sentence,' are clear and the detention on failure to furnish sonority could not be deemed to have commenced before the sentence under Section 117 of the Indian Penal Code has been served out. I, therefore, accept the reference and direct that Jhabdey do not surrender now. The bail-bond is cancelled.


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