Skip to content


Hira Lal Thakur Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1904)ILR31Cal1053
AppellantHira Lal Thakur
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
joint trial - different transactions--new trial--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) sections 235, 239--indian, penal code (act xlv of 1860) sections 403/109 414, 420, 471. - .....away, laid law's shop we must take it that the magistrate found that the offences which surajbhan thakur committed took place on the 22nd january 1904, and not on the 23rd august.3. we think it is clear that the transaction of the 23rd august was complete in itself and that surajbhan had nothing to do with it. what occurred on the 22nd january was a fresh transaction in which both the accused were concerned and for which they might have been jointly tried; but as the matter stands we are dearly of opinion that the joint trial was bad in law, because it was not confined to the offence or offences committed on the 22nd january. that being so, we must give effect to the legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and set aside his conviction, and direct a new trial. in.....
Judgment:

Pratt and Handley, JJ.

1. The prisoner in this case has been convicted of offences under Sections 420, 471 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. One Surajbhan Thakur was jointly tried with him on charges under Section 403 read with 109 and Section 414.

2. The offences of which the appellant was charged were said to have been committed on the 23rd August 1903. The charges against Surajbhan Thakur also mentioned the same date; but in his judgment the Magistrate has stated, and we think quite correctly, that Surajbhan Thakur had nothing to do with what occurred on the 23rd August. Therefore in convicting him with reference to the note of Rs. 500 in White away, Laid law's shop we must take it that the Magistrate found that the offences which Surajbhan Thakur committed took place on the 22nd January 1904, and not on the 23rd August.

3. We think it is clear that the transaction of the 23rd August was complete in itself and that Surajbhan had nothing to do with it. What occurred on the 22nd January was a fresh transaction in which both the accused were concerned and for which they might have been jointly tried; but as the matter stands we are dearly of opinion that the joint trial was bad in law, because it was not confined to the offence or offences committed on the 22nd January. That being so, we must give effect to the legal objection raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant and set aside his conviction, and direct a new trial. In the meantime the accused will be detained in hajat unless he can give very substantial bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.

4. We think under the circumstances the accused should be tried by some Magistrate other than the Third Presidency Magistrate to whom the Chief Presidency Magistrate may transfer the case.


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