Skip to content


Ganga Prasad Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in76Ind.Cas.568
AppellantGanga Prasad
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredHar Dutt Panda v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 107, 117(4), 233, 535 - security proceedings--joint trial, whether permissible--joint trial--charge framed against one accused and not against other--irregularity. - - it is not illegal to hold a joint trial under section 107. section 117(4) clearly shows that......but were on the same side. the complaint had been made against them jointly.3. on the merits i find no reason to interfere with the order passed against ganga pershad.4. the omission to frame a charge did not prejudice him in any way.5. i refuse to interfere and direct that the record be.....
Judgment:

Stuart, J.

1. I do not agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. It is not illegal to hold a joint trial under Section 107. Section 117(4) clearly shows that.

2. The learned Sessions Judge appears to be referring to the decision of Har Dutt Panda v. Emperor 33 Ind. Cas. 645 : 14 A.L.J. 268 : 17 Cr. L.J. 165. That decision does not lay down that the learned Judge appears to think that it does lay down. It lays down that the joint trial of two contending parties should not be allowed in a 107-proceeding. I find that Ganga Pershad and Parshadi Lal were not contending parties but were on the same side. The complaint had been made against them jointly.

3. On the merits I find no reason to interfere with the order passed against Ganga Pershad.

4. The omission to frame a charge did not prejudice him in any way.

5. I refuse to interfere and direct that the record be returned.


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