Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Ganda Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtPunjab and Haryana
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.109
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGanda Singh
Excerpt:
.....sentence, when can be passed--revision--effect to be given to real intention of magistrate--reduction of sentence. - sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause......orderkensington, j.1. the additional district magistrate, when sentencing ganda singh on the 19ih april 1910 (case no. 24-7 of 1910), overlooked the application of section 35, criminal procedure code.it is only in case of separate convictions at one trial that the question arises whether sentences should he concurrent or consecutive. in all other cases, section 397 is imperative.2. ganda singh had been previously convicted by the same magistrate on 30th march 1910 and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, since reduced to two years on appeal. the magistrate was not competent to direct that the fresh sentence of 19th april 1910 should run from the date of his order and that portion of his order is set aside.3. it seems to have been the magistrate's intention that ganda singh should undergo a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Kensington, J.

1. The Additional District Magistrate, when sentencing Ganda Singh on the 19ih April 1910 (Case No. 24-7 of 1910), overlooked the application of Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code.

It is only in case of separate convictions at one trial that the question arises whether sentences should he concurrent or consecutive. In all other cases, Section 397 is imperative.

2. Ganda Singh had been previously convicted by the same Magistrate on 30th March 1910 and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, since reduced to two years on appeal. The Magistrate was not competent to direct that the fresh sentence of 19th April 1910 should run from the date of his order and that portion of his order is set aside.

3. It seems to have been the Magistrate's intention that Ganda Singh should undergo a total period of 4 years' imprisonment. To give effect to this intention, as near as may be, it is hereby ordered on revision that the second sentence of 19th April 1910 be so far reduced that the period of imprisonment for that offence shall be for two years instead of three years, to commence on expiry of the sentence awarded on the earlier conviction of 30th March 1910.


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