Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Romesh Chandra Gupta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in46Ind.Cas.157
AppellantEmperor
RespondentRomesh Chandra Gupta
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 439(2), interpretation of - enhancement of sentence, whether can be ordered without hearing accused. - .....fact suffered 7 days' rigorous imprisonment. since then, too, and also in the proceedings before the district magistrate he has had to undergo a very considerable expenditure. further since the initiation of these proceedings, he or his relatives have no doubt suffered great anxiety,3. taking all the circumstances into account we think that it will be now sufficient for the ends of justice if, maintaining the sentence of fine, we impose upon the accused the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months to run from the date on which he surrenders.4. the accused will now be called upon to surrender and undergo the sentence now passed upon him.
Judgment:

Teunon and Huda, JJ.

1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Tipperah under the provisions of Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the accused with whose case we are now dealing one Romesh Chandra Gupta was employed in Chandpur Post Office as a postal clerk, and it has been found that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 151 8-0 made over to him by the addressee of a value payable parcel. When his offence was detected, he admitted his guilt to his superior officer and subsequently to the departmental officer who held an enquiry into the matter. When placed on his trial he again pleaded guilty. It further appears that the money misappropriated, has been made good by his relatives. Now these are all matters which may properly be taken into account on the question of sentence. But still we cannot but think that the sentence of one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 is not an adequate punishment for the offence committed. His age was also taken into account. But it appears that he is of the age of 25, that is to say, he is of an age when it should have been possible for him to resist a temptation of the sort held out.

2. In considering what sentence we should now inflict upon him we ought, however, to consider further the period that has elapsed since his conviction on the 15th November 1916 and also the fact that under an order of this Court passed on the 11th May he has in fact suffered 7 days' rigorous imprisonment. Since then, too, and also in the proceedings before the District Magistrate he has had to undergo a very considerable expenditure. Further since the initiation of these proceedings, he or his relatives have no doubt suffered great anxiety,

3. Taking all the circumstances into account we think that it will be now sufficient for the ends of justice if, maintaining the sentence of fine, we impose upon the accused the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months to run from the date on which he surrenders.

4. The accused will now be called upon to surrender and undergo the sentence now passed upon him.


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