Lakhimi Ram Gaooi Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment
|Judge||Asutosh Mookerjee and ;Sheepshanks, JJ.|
|Appellant||Lakhimi Ram Gaooi|
|Cases Referred||Sher Muhammad v. Emperor|
appeal - assistant sessions judge, judgment of--sentence under each of two sections, penal code, 4 years, sentences to run concurrently--jurisdiction--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 408. - .....before us, the accused has been convicted and sentenced under two sections of the indian penal code; the sentences, however, are directed to run concurrently. the appeal, we think, lies to the court of session; this view is in accord with that adopted by chandavarkar and heaton, jj., in tulsidas lakshman v. emperor 3 ind. cas. 171 : 11 bom. l.r. 544 : 10 cr.l.j. 250, namely, that where an assistant sessions judge passes sentences upon an accused, each of which is four years or under, and they are ordered to run concurrently, the appeal from the conviction and sentence lies to the sessions court and not to the high court. a similar opinion had been expressed by clark, c.j., and maude, j., in sher muhammad v. emperor 25 p.r. 1901 : 3 punjab cr.r. 2506. let the petition of appeal be.....
1. In the case mentioned, So-miruddin Sonar v. Emperor, the accused had been convicted of an offence under one section only of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years; it was ruled by Sharfuddin and Chapman, JJ, that as the trial had been held by an Assistant Sessions Judge, the appeal lay,, under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the Court of Session and not to the High Court. In the case before us, the accused has been convicted and sentenced under two sections of the Indian Penal Code; the sentences, however, are directed to run concurrently. The appeal, we think, lies to the Court of Session; this view is in accord with that adopted by Chandavarkar and Heaton, JJ., in Tulsidas Lakshman v. Emperor 3 Ind. Cas. 171 : 11 Bom. L.R. 544 : 10 Cr.L.J. 250, namely, that where an Assistant Sessions Judge passes sentences upon an accused, each of which is four years or under, and they are ordered to run concurrently, the appeal from the conviction and sentence lies to the Sessions Court and not to the High Court. A similar opinion had been expressed by Clark, C.J., and Maude, J., in Sher Muhammad v. Emperor 25 P.R. 1901 : 3 Punjab Cr.R. 2506. Let the petition of appeal be returned for presentation to the proper Court.