Skip to content


Gyansing Prabhatsingh Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Appln. No. 390 of 1961
Judge
Reported inAIR1963Guj275; 1963CriLJ519
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 239; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A
AppellantGyansing Prabhatsingh
RespondentState
Appellant Advocate A.H. Mehta, Adv.
Respondent Advocate H.M. Ghoksi, Govt. Pleader
Excerpt:
- - and therefore the trial is bad.orderv.b. raju, j.1. the main point argued in this revision application is that two persons, viz., the driver of a motor-car and the driver of a motor-truck coming from different directions collided and they were tried in one tfial for offences under sections. 279 and 304a i.p.c. and therefore the trial is bad. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in view of the provisions of section 239 cr. p. c. in such a case it cannot be said that there is one transaction in which different offences have been eommttted. the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and a re-trial is ordered.
Judgment:
ORDER

V.B. Raju, J.

1. The main point argued in this revision application is that two persons, viz., the driver of a motor-car and the driver of a motor-truck coming from different directions collided and they were tried in one tfial for offences under Sections. 279 and 304A I.P.C. and therefore the trial is bad. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in view of the provisions of Section 239 Cr. P. C. In such a case it cannot be said that there is one transaction in which different offences have been eommttted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and a re-trial is ordered.


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