SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1908 Supreme(Cal) 84

FRANCIS W. MACLEAN, CARNDUFF
Fanindra Nath Banerjee – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Maclean C.J. and Carnduff, J. - These cases were tried before a Judge and Jury. The Judge agreeing with a majority of the Jury, four to one, convicted the prisoners of an offence u/s 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to transportation for life. The appeals, therefore, cannot succeed, unless the appellants can satisfy us that there was some misdirection by the learned Judge in his charge to the Jury. The first criticism upon the action of the Judge is that, whilst the verdict was delivered on the 29th May 1908, and the sentence was passed on the 5th June following, his charge to the Jury was not written out until the 29th June. Reference has been made to Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section does not assist the appellants, for there is a proviso that "in trials by Jury, the Court need not write a judgment, but the Court of Session should record the heads of the charge to the Jury." There is nothing there as to when it must be written, as in the case of a judgment by the Court dealt with in a preceding part of the section. If we refer to the Circular Orders of this Court, Chapter I, Order 59, we find an express order

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top