CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Duval, J., Chotzner, J.
Bhola Nath Hazra & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 29-10-1926
Section 276 Criminal Procedure Code - Jury Selection - The trial was found to be bad as it did not conform to the provisions of Section 276 Criminal Procedure Code, as the required number of jurors were not chosen by lot. The irregularity was deemed to be of a grave and material nature, affecting the proper constitution of the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The trial was found to be bad as it did not conform to the provisions of Section 276 Criminal Procedure Code, as the required number of jurors were not chosen by lot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the trial to be bad due to the irregularity in jury selection, which was deemed to be of a grave and material nature, affecting the proper constitution of the Court. The conviction and sentence were according to law upon the original charges, and the petitioners were permitted to remain on their present bail pending the orders of the Sessions Judge.
Issues: Irregularity in jury selection, compliance with Section 276 Criminal Procedure Code
Ratio Decidendi: The irregularity in jury selection was deemed to be of a grave and material nature, affecting the proper constitution of the Court, leading to the trial being found bad.
Final Decision: The trial was found to be bad, and the conviction and sentence were according to law upon the original charges. The petitioners were permitted to remain on their present bail pending the orders of the Sessions Judge.
JUDGMENT
Chotzner, J. - This rule must be made absolute on the first ground upon which it was granted, namely that the trial was bad as not being in conformity with the provisions of Section 276 Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that of the 12 jurors summoned to attend the Sessions Court only 5 appeared, and those were empanelled as jurors and heard and decided the case.
2. Now Section 276 requires the jurors to be chosen by lot and the second proviso to the section lays down that in case of a deficiency of the persons summoned, the number of jurors required may with the leave of the Court be chosen from such other persons as may be present. In the present case there being only 5 jurors present and 5 being the necessary quorum for a jury plainly there were not enough jurors present to permit of their being chosen by lot. The proper course in my opinion therefore for the Judge to have followed was to make good the deficit by choosing some other persons who were present and adding their names to the five jurors and from the whole body choosing the necessary five by lot to act as the jury in the case.
3. The learned Sessions Judge thinks that the procedure followed is a mere irregularity and as no objection was raised by the accused and no prejudice was caused to them the verdict cannot be upset. He refers to the case of Empress v. Jhubboo Mahton [1882] 8 Cal. 739. That decision was however not followed in the later case of Brojendra Lal Sirkar v. King-Emperor [1902] 7 C.W.N. 188, wherein it was held that
the irregularity was of a very grave and material nature inasmuch as it affected the proper constitution of the Court.
4. The same view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Emperor v. Bradshaw [1911] 33 All. 385.
5. The latest case of The Government of Bengal Vs. Muchu Khan, AIR 1925 Cal 798 does not lay down any different proposition of law. We are therefore of opinion that the trial is bad. The conviction and sentence are according to law upon the original charges. The petitioners are permitted to remain on their present bail pending the orders of the Sessions Judge.
Duval, J.
6. I agree.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.