Skip to content


Appanna Vs. Pithani Mahalakshmi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR34Mad545
AppellantAppanna
RespondentPithani Mahalakshmi and ors.
Cases ReferredCode of Criminal Procedure (Abhi Misscr v. Lachmi Narain I.L.R.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, act v of 1898, section 423(b)(2) - alteration of rinding under--indian penal code, act xlv of 1860, section 325--conviction under, may be altered to conviction under section 144 appellate court, power of. - - here the sessions judge was clearly wrong under section 423 (6) (2) of the code of criminal procedure the appellate court may alter the finding maintaining the sentence and there is nothing to restrict the finding which may be altered to a finding of conviction.order1. the charge against the accused was under sections 148 and 325, indian penal code. the magistrate acquitted the accused under section 148, but convicted them under section 325 the accused then appealed to the sessions judge who was of opinion that the accused should have been convicted under section 147. indian penal code, but thought he could not interfere with be acquittal. here the sessions judge was clearly wrong under section 423 (6) (2) of the code of criminal procedure the appellate court may alter the finding maintaining the sentence and there is nothing to restrict the finding which may be altered to a finding of conviction. we agree with the decision in queen empress v. jabanulla i.l.r. 6 (1896) cal. 975 which cannot, we think, with respect be distinguished in the manner.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The charge against the accused was under Sections 148 and 325, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 148, but convicted them under Section 325 The accused then appealed to the Sessions Judge who was of opinion that the accused should have been convicted under Section 147. Indian Penal Code, but thought he could not interfere with be acquittal. Here the Sessions Judge was clearly wrong Under Section 423 (6) (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellate Court may alter the finding maintaining the sentence and there is nothing to restrict the finding which may be altered to a finding of conviction. We agree with the decision in Queen Empress v. Jabanulla I.L.R. 6 (1896) Cal. 975 which cannot, we think, with respect be distinguished in the manner in which it was sought to be distinguished in Sami Ayya v. Emperor I.L.R. 6 (1903) Mad 478. In the Calcutta case there was no appeal by Government against the acquittal, but the High Court was dealing with an appeal by the persons who had been convicted. In Sami Ayya v. Emperor I.L.R. 6 (1903) Mad 478 also there is no reference to the wording of Section 423 (6) (2) Code of Criminal Procedure (Abhi Misscr v. Lachmi Narain I.L.R. (1900) Cal. 566) upon which the Sessions Judge relies does not seem to us to have any bearing as it proceeded on the view taken by the learned Judges of the facts. If the Sessions Judge finds' the accused guilty of noting, he may then consider whether by virtue of Section 149 Indian Penal Code the eviction under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, may or may not be sustainable We therefore set aside the acquittal and direct the re-hearing of the appeal.


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