Skip to content


Mir Ghulam HussaIn Vs. Sk. Hapan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in29(1963)CLT355; 1965CriLJ408
AppellantMir Ghulam Hussain
RespondentSk. Hapan
Cases ReferredKrishana Nayar Rama Nayar v. State
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot..........4 merely noted that the corroborated the evidence of p.w. 1.but i notice that their evidence, in cross examination has been recorded in full. again so far as p.w. 3 is concerned his examination-in-chief also is fairly complete and gives a clear picture of the sub-stance of the allegations made by him in the petition of complete. mr. rahim srew my attention to the decition of the bombay high court reported in krishana nayar rama nayar v. state air 1960 bom 107 but the record of evidence noticed by the learned judges in that case appears to have been extremely scrappy and not of the type found in the present case. there, the examination-in-chief consisted of a. mere statement that the witnesses corroborated some other witnesses, and the cross examination also consisted of some stray.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R.L. Narasimhan, C.J.

1. This is a petition, in revision, against the summary trial and conviction of that petitioner under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and under Section 323, I.P.C. and the sentences of fine passed on him. for those offences by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Bhadralt.

2. The main point of law urged by Mr. Rahim for the petitioner is that the substance of the deposition witnesses has not been recorded in the mariner required by Section 264 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He invited my attention to the fact that though the evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded in some detail the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate while recording the evidence, in the examination in chief of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 merely noted that the corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1.

But I notice that their evidence, in cross examination has been recorded in full. Again so far as P.W. 3 is concerned his examination-in-chief also is fairly complete and gives a clear picture of the Sub-stance of the allegations made by him in the petition of complete. Mr. Rahim srew my attention to the decition of the Bombay High Court reported in Krishana Nayar Rama Nayar v. State AIR 1960 Bom 107 but the record of evidence noticed by the learned Judges in that case appears to have been extremely scrappy and not of the type found in the present case. There, the examination-in-chief consisted of a. mere statement that the witnesses corroborated some other witnesses, and the cross examination also consisted of some stray notes. Hence their lordships of the Bombay High Court held that the substance of the evidence was not recorded in the manner required by law.

3. But here the statements of the main witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 and 3 have been recorded at some length especially in cross examination and similarly though the examination-in-chief of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is somewhat brief, the record of the cross-examination is complete. Under such circumstances I am not prepared to say that there was contravention of Section 264 Cr.P.C.

4. But the passing of two separate sentences of fine for the two offences under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and under Section 323, I.P.C. may not be appropriate in this case, especially as no medical certificate has been filed to prove the nature of the injuries. I therefore modify the order of the lower court as follows: The conviction of the petitioner under Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 20/- passed on him for that offence are maintained. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days. His conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. also is maintained but no separate sentence need be passed for that offence and the sentence of line passed on him for that offence is set aside. The order for payment of compensation is also maintained. Subject to this modification in the sentence the revision petition is dismissed.


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