Back
1956 Supreme(Gau) 49
Manipur High Court
DATTA, J.
Panshi Khullakpa
Versus
O/C Wing H. Q., 4th Bn. Assam
Criminal Ref. Case No. 9 of 1956
Decided On : 28-08-1956
B.K. Ghosh, for Petitioners; N. Ibotombi Singh, Govt. Advocate, for the Opposite party.
The denial of the accused's right to prove their contention vitiates the trial and renders the conviction and sentences illegal.
Headnote:
S. 447 - Illegal Trial - The court set aside the conviction and sentences of the accused under S. 447, I.P.C., as the trial was found to be illegal due to the denial of the accused's right to prove their contention.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants were convicted under S. 447, I.P.C., for entering and cultivating land claimed by them, which had been allotted to the Assam Rifles. The trial was found to be illegal as the accused were denied the right to prove their contention.
Finding of the Court:
The court accepted the reference and set aside the conviction and sentences, ordering a retrial by another competent Magistrate. The fine, if recovered, was to be refunded forthwith.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the trial and the denial of the accused's right to prove their contention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the trial was illegal due to the denial of the accused's right to prove their contention, which vitiates the trial.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentences, ordering a retrial by another competent Magistrate and the refund of any recovered fine.
This is a reference under S. 438, Criminal P. C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur, with the recommendation that the order of the Magistrate convicting the four applicants (accused) under S. 447, I.P.C., and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 10/- each be set aside, as the trial was illegal.
2. The case was tried as a summons case, and when the applicants were called upon to show cause under S. 242, Criminal P. C., they admitted having entered upon, and cultivated the land as they claimed the land to belong to them, even though they had knowledge that the land had been allotted to the Assam Rifles. The order of the learned Magistrate shows that he did not accept the statement of the accused as an admission of the offence and did not convict them on its basis, and in that he was right, because the statement made by the accused can by no means be taken to mean that the accused intended to plead or were pleading guilty to the charge.
But the error into which the learned Magistrate fell thereafter was that instead of proceeding under S. 244, Criminal P. C., to hear evidence he closed the trial, examined, as he says, some old records and negatived the plea of the accused, and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. This was clearly not a mere irregularity, but an illegality, which vitiates the trial, because the accused persons were denied the right to prove their contention. The admission referred to in the last para of the order of the Magistrate, in the above circumstances cannot but mean that the reference is to the admission of having gone on the land. The learned Government Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the Government and the complainant, also conceded the point.
3. I accordingly accept the reference and set aside the conviction and sentences, and order that the applicants shall be retried by another competent Magistrate to be selected for the purpose by the District Magistrate, Manipur. Fine, if recovered shall be refunded forthwith. The applicants shall appear before the District Magistrate, Manipur, on 15-9-1956.
Convictions set aside.
