Skip to content


Lal Mohan Mandal Vs. Kali Kishore Bhuimali - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1911)ILR38Cal293
AppellantLal Mohan Mandal
RespondentKali Kishore Bhuimali
Cases ReferredRatnessari Pershad v. Empress
Excerpt:
appellate court - power to alter conviction under section 147, penal code, to one under section 323, when the common object charged was other than to cause hurt--issue of rule and order for bail by the high court--duty of the magistrate on receiving intimation of the same by telegram from counsel--delay in transmitting the bail orders--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 423. - .....actually served seven days; and we cannot understand how it was that our order did not reach the district magistrate for eight days. but, beyond this, we understand that the learned counsel who obtained the rule took the trouble to telegraph to the district magistrate's office, informing him of the result of the application; and it has been laid down by this court in more than one case, of which we need only cite that of ratnessari pershad v. empress (1898) 2 c.w.n. 498, that when a rule is issued by the high court and the proceedings stayed, and therefore, a fortiori, when there is an order for bail, the magistrates on receiving reliable information thereof should stay their hands then and there.3. another matter in connection with this case is the delay which took place in the.....
Judgment:

Holmwood and Doss, JJ.

1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Dacca to show cause why the convictions of, and sentences passed upon, the petitioners, under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that there was no charge against them under that section, and that the common object charged for the riot did not specify the intention to cause hurt.

2. It is admitted that the conviction cannot stand on the ground set out in the Rule; but we are asked to order a retrial. No doubt, it would have been our duty to order a re-trial, had it not been for the fact that the petitioners have undergone the sentence of 15 days' rigorous imprisonment, which was passed against them in modification by the lower Appellate Court. It appears, however, that at the time we issued the order for bail, on the 5th September 1910, the petitioners had only actually served seven days; and we cannot understand how it was that our order did not reach the District Magistrate for eight days. But, beyond this, we understand that the learned Counsel who obtained the Rule took the trouble to telegraph to the District Magistrate's Office, informing him of the result of the application; and it has been laid down by this Court in more than one case, of which we need only cite that of Ratnessari Pershad v. Empress (1898) 2 C.W.N. 498, that when a Rule is issued by the High Court and the proceedings stayed, and therefore, a fortiori, when there is an order for bail, the Magistrates on receiving reliable information thereof should stay their hands then and there.

3. Another matter in connection with this case is the delay which took place in the office of this Court. We had reason to complain of a similar delay during the course of the present week, arid we must lay down most stringently that all bail orders be issued on the very day on which they are pronounced by the Judges sitting on the Bench, irrespective of the written order on the record. The Rule is made absolute, and the convictions and sentences are set aside.


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