Skip to content


Bhakthavatsalu Naidu and ors. Vs. King Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1906)16MLJ560
AppellantBhakthavatsalu Naidu and ors.
RespondentKing Emperor
Cases ReferredQueen Empress v. Chagan Jagannath I.L.
Excerpt:
- - as pointed out in the order of reference the case was not argued and the sentence was bad on another ground......sentence the fact that a fine is imposed by the appellate court would not in law be an enhancement of the sentence. in a case where such an alteration of the sentence has the effect of rendering it in the circumstances of the case excessive or inappropriate, the interference in revision of a superior court may be called for.2. as regards criminal revision case no. 50 of 1902 we are unable to adopt the view taken by the learned judges in that case. as pointed out in the order of reference the case was not argued and the sentence was bad on another ground.3. as regards the particular question which has been referred to us we are of opinion that the sentence of the appellate court in the case is not illegal.
Judgment:

1. For the purposes of the question which has been referred to us it is not necessary to consider whether we should be prepared to adopt the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Queen Empress v. Chagan Jagannath I.L.R(1899) B. 439 and to hold that when the period of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine plus the period of imprisonment left unaltered by the Appellate Court, is the same as the period of the original sentence, there is no enhancement of the sentence such as would render it illegal having regard to the provisions of Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of opinion that when the aggregate period of imprisonment which the accused may have to undergo is to any extent less than the period of the original sentence the fact that a fine is imposed by the Appellate Court would not in law be an enhancement of the sentence. In a case where such an alteration of the sentence has the effect of rendering it in the circumstances of the case excessive or inappropriate, the interference in revision of a superior court may be called for.

2. As regards Criminal Revision Case No. 50 of 1902 we are unable to adopt the view taken by the learned Judges in that case. As pointed out in the order of reference the case was not argued and the sentence was bad on another ground.

3. As regards the particular question which has been referred to us we are of opinion that the sentence of the Appellate Court in the case is not illegal.


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