Back
1927 Supreme(Cal) 120
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rankin, C.J, Buckland, J.
Doat Ali alias Sheik Deoat Ali Sarkar & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
King-Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 16-12-1927
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Appeals and Rehearing
Headnote
Two Separate Cases - The court found that the trial judge erred in trying two separate appeals together as one case and making up his mind based on contradictory stories. The duty of the judge was to keep each appeal separate and deal with it on its merits, confining himself to the evidence given in that case alone. The appeal must be heard again by a different judge.
Fact of the Case:
Two separate cases in which the accused were convicted by the trial court. Appeals were brought by the convicted persons and were heard together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who made a decision based on contradictory stories.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial judge erred in trying the appeals together as one case and making up his mind based on contradictory stories. The duty of the judge was to keep each appeal separate and deal with it on its merits, confining himself to the evidence given in that case alone.
Issues: The issue was the improper handling of the appeals by the trial judge, who tried them together as one case and made a decision based on contradictory stories.
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of the judge was to keep each appeal separate and deal with it on its merits, confining himself to the evidence given in that case alone.
Final Decision: The appeal must be heard again by a different judge, and the petitioners will remain on bail pending the rehearing of the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Rankin, C.J. - In this case it appears that there were two separate cases in each of which the accused were convicted by the trial Court. An appeal was brought in each case by the convicted persons and they came before the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca. His procedure was this : He tried the two appeals together as one case and made up his mind that there were two contradictory stories. Having found which of the two stories was true and having found that the other was untrue, he allowed one of the appeals and dismissed the other. It seems reasonably plain that the duty of the learned Judge was to keep each appeal absolutely separate and to deal with it on its merits confining himself to the evidence given in that case and in that alone. As one of these appeals has been allowed and the persons have been acquitted that matter is not before us; but as regards the parties whose appeal has been dismissed this application is brought. In our opinion, the rule should be made absolute The appeal in this case must be heard again, and we direct that it be heard by a different learned Judge to be nominated by the Sessions Judge. The petitioners will remain on bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate pending the rehearing of the appeal.
Buckland, J.
2. I agree.
