Skip to content


State Vs. Govinddas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1957CriLJ448
AppellantState
RespondentGovinddas
Cases Referred(A) and Sardar Ahmad v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- - the trial magistrate was clearly not justified in questioning the accused under section 342, cr......to four month's rigorous imprisonment on the ground that the previous conviction, on which the trial magistrate relied, had not been proved in accordance with section 511 criminal procedure code. it appears that at the trial the prosecution did not prove the previous conviction of the applicant. but the accused in his cross-examination under section 342 cr. p.c. admitted the previous conviction. in this revision petition it is contended on behalf of the state that the accused could be questioned regarding the previous conviction without the same being duly proved. i am unable to accept this contention.section 511, cr p. c. is quite explicit and clear on the point and says that for the purpose of section 75 i.p.c. a previous conviction must be proved in accordance with law. the trial.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Dixit, J.

1. The non-applicant Govinddas was found guilty by the First Class Magistrate Depalpur of an offence under Section 380, I.P.C. The learned Magistrate taking into consideration a previous conviction of the accused, sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge of Indore while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence to four month's rigorous imprisonment on the ground that the previous conviction, on which the trial Magistrate relied, had not been proved in accordance with Section 511 Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that at the trial the prosecution did not prove the previous conviction of the applicant. But the accused in his cross-examination under Section 342 Cr. P.C. admitted the previous conviction. In this revision petition it is contended on behalf of the State that the accused could be questioned regarding the previous conviction without the same being duly proved. I am unable to accept this contention.

Section 511, Cr P. C. is quite explicit and clear on the point and says that for the purpose of Section 75 I.P.C. a previous conviction must be proved in accordance with law. The trial Magistrate was clearly not justified in Questioning the accused under Section 342, Cr. P. C. about the previous conviction, when there was no evidence against him on that point. This view is amply supported by the decisions in Yasin v. Emperor ILR 2S Cal 689(A) and Sardar Ahmad v. Emperor AIR 1934 Lah 693(B) and other authorities. This petition is, therefore, rejected. HOP Petition rejected.


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