Skip to content


Jhagru and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All609; 73Ind.Cas.775
AppellantJhagru and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredBhola v. Emperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 413--joint trial--appealable and non-appealable sen-fences--appeal whether lies against non-appealable sentence. - daniels, j.1. this is a revision on behalf of ninteen persons who were tried jointly with one. jhagru. jhagru was given en appealable sentence and the applicant were given small sentnees of fine against which, they if had not been tried jointly with jhagru, no appeal lay under the provisions of section 413. the chief point raised by the revision is whether, if u person who is given a sentence which is ordinarily non-appealable is tried jointly with a person who is given a larger sentence, the former obtains a right of appeal which he would otherwise not have. divergent views have been expressed on this subject but the latest published decisions of this court, which are referred to by the learned judge, namely, husain v. emperor khan 9 ind. cas. 690 : 39 a. 293 : 15 a.l.j 136 : 18 cr. l.j......
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This is a revision on behalf of ninteen persons who were tried jointly with one. Jhagru. Jhagru was given en appealable sentence and the applicant were given small sentnees of fine against which, they if had not been tried jointly with Jhagru, no appeal lay under the provisions of Section 413. The chief point raised by the revision is whether, if u person who is given a sentence which is ordinarily non-appealable is tried jointly with a person who is given a larger sentence, the former obtains a right of appeal which he would otherwise not have. Divergent views have been expressed on this subject but the latest published decisions of this Court, which are referred to by the learned judge, namely, Husain v. Emperor Khan 9 Ind. Cas. 690 : 39 A. 293 : 15 A.L.J 136 : 18 Cr. L.J. 546 and. Bhola v. Emperor 40 Ind. Cas.3320 : 39 A. 549 : 15 A.L.J 5574 : 18 Cr. L.J. 684, are against the contentions of the applicants. In the latter case Piggott, J., stated that the practice of the Court on the subject must be taken as settled. My own view is in accordance with these decisions and I accordingly decline to accept this plea. I may add that the in matter will soon cease to be of importance as Section 413 is being altered in the amended Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal of Jhagru who did appeal. He was not, therefore, bound to send up the case of the other accused in revision under the rule laid down in Bhola v. Emperor 40 Ind. Cas.3320 : 39 A. 549 : 15 A.L.J 5574 : 18 Cr. L.J. 684. The appellant contended that he should have done so because of a chance remark at the end of his judgment that it was possible that some of the other accused might be innocent but he was unable to help their. This is not a finding; it is merely a remark as to a possibility in the case of accused whose cases the learned Judge had not considered in detail. The case is one in which small fines only were imposed and I am not prepared in revision to consider the evidence against each individual accused. I dismiss the application.


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