Skip to content


Natabar Ghose Vs. Provash Chandra Chatterjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)ILR27Cal461
AppellantNatabar Ghose
RespondentProvash Chandra Chatterjee
Excerpt:
presidency magistrate, judgment of - sentence of imprisonment--reasons for conviction to be recorded--code of criminal procedure (act v of 1898), section 370, clause (i)--penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 408. - .....such as that now before us, the magistrate should record a brief statement of the reasons for the conviction. the magistrate has failed to comply with the law. he has recorded no such reasons as are contemplated by section 370. it is not sufficient for him to record that the offence is proved, for that may necessarily be implied to be his opinion from the fact that he has convicted the accused. the law contemplates something further as the reasons for the conviction. we have accordingly considered the whole case, and, although we agree with the presidency magistrate that the accused should be convicted, we think that he should have been convicted of theft as a servant rather than of criminal misappropriation. the error, however, is immaterial, as it has not prejudiced the accused. the.....
Judgment:

Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.

1. Section 370 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that in a case such as that now before us, the Magistrate should record a brief statement of the reasons for the conviction. The Magistrate has failed to comply with the law. He has recorded no such reasons as are contemplated by Section 370. It is not sufficient for him to record that the offence is proved, for that may necessarily be implied to be his opinion from the fact that he has convicted the accused. The law contemplates something further as the reasons for the conviction. We have accordingly considered the whole case, and, although we agree with the Presidency Magistrate that the accused should be convicted, we think that he should have been convicted of theft as a servant rather than of criminal misappropriation. The error, however, is immaterial, as it has not prejudiced the accused. The rule is, therefore, discharged.


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