Skip to content


Gaharali and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Criminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal266
AppellantGaharali and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredRam Lal Singh v. Hari Charan Ahir
Excerpt:
- .....judgment dealt with an alleged delay in lodging the complaint. after dealing with that matter the learned magistrate said, 'i think the evidence as to the occurrence is satisfactory and the only confusion arises through (sic) the number of hachan ali who are mention-ed. i, therefore, reject the appeal.' the learned magistrate rejected the appeal and then proceeded to discuss the question of sentence. it is to be noticed that it is not possible to ascertain from the appellate court's judgment what the occurrence was.3. it cannot be accepted for a moment that that is a sufficient or satisfactory judgment of an appellate court. it was pointed out by the late chief justice sir lawrence jenkins in the case of ram lal singh v. hari charan ahir (1910) 37 cal. 194 that 'it is continually.....
Judgment:

1. This rule was obtained by the pensioners calling upon the District Magistrate of Backergunj to show cause why the appeal should not be re-hoard on the ground that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court did not discuss the evidence in the case for the defence and had not arrived at any finding with regard to the matters raised in the lower Court.

2. In our judgment there is no doubt that this rule must be made absolute. The judgment of the learned Additional District Magistrate is not satisfactory. In the first place the judgment dealt with an alleged delay in lodging the complaint. After dealing with that matter the learned Magistrate said, 'I think the evidence as to the occurrence is satisfactory and the only confusion arises through (sic) the number of Hachan Ali who are mention-ed. I, therefore, reject the appeal.' The learned Magistrate rejected the appeal and then proceeded to discuss the question of sentence. It is to be noticed that it is not possible to ascertain from the appellate Court's judgment what the occurrence was.

3. It cannot be accepted for a moment that that is a sufficient or satisfactory judgment of an Appellate Court. It was pointed out by the late Chief Justice Sir Lawrence Jenkins in the case of Ram Lal Singh v. Hari Charan Ahir (1910) 37 Cal. 194 that 'It is continually overlooked by Courts of Appeal that Section 424 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that the rules contained in Chap. XXVI as to the judgment of a Criminal Court of original jurisdiction shall apply, so far as may be practicable, to the judgment of any Appellate Court other than a High Court; and one of the sections in Chap. XXVI is Section 367, which prescribes that a judgment shall, among other things, contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision.'

4. In our judgment it is clear that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in the present case does not comply with the provisions of Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There are numerous decisions of this Court which lay down the, manner in which the lower Appellate. Court's judgment should be delivered and what it should contain; it is not necessary for me to refer to these cases in detail. It is sufficient to say that in this case the Rule must be made absolute and the matter must be remitted to the lower Appellate Court (Mr. Macpherson) for rehearing in order that the learned Magistrate may write a judgment in accordance with law.


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