Skip to content


Pingai Pahurappa and anr., Vs. King-emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ520
AppellantPingai Pahurappa and anr., ;basavan Gowd and ors. and Karnam Nargudappa
RespondentKing-emperor
Cases ReferredRamakrishna Reddi v. Emperor I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....not triable by a jury. the trial of the accused on all the charges was joint. the accused were acquitted by the jury of the offence under section 395, i.p.c. the judge, differing from the two assessors convicted them of rioting. it is contended in appeal that according to section 269 of cr.p.c. the judge was bound to constitute all the members of the jury as assessors for trying the non-jury offences and that he not having done so the conviction is illegal. this contention appears to us to be sound and to be in accordance with the principle of the decision in ramakrishna reddi v. emperor i.l.r. (1903) m. 508, though on the facts that case may be distinguishable. we must set aside the conviction and the sentence passed on the accused and direct a retrial of the accused on the charges.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the accused were charged with an offence under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code triable by jury and also with offences under Section 147 and other sections triable by a judge with the help of assessors. Five gentlemen were selected to form a jury and two of them were chosen as assessors to help the judge with reference to the charges' not triable by a jury. The trial of the accused on all the charges was joint. The accused were acquitted by the jury of the offence under Section 395, I.P.C. The Judge, differing from the two assessors convicted them of rioting. It is contended in appeal that according to Section 269 of Cr.P.C. the Judge was bound to constitute all the members of the jury as assessors for trying the non-jury offences and that he not having done so the conviction is illegal. This contention appears to us to be sound and to be in accordance with the principle of the decision in Ramakrishna Reddi v. Emperor I.L.R. (1903) M. 508, though on the facts that case may be distinguishable. We must set aside the conviction and the sentence passed on the accused and direct a retrial of the accused on the charges triable with the help of assessors. The accused may remain on the same bail as now.


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