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

1913 Supreme(Mad) 216

SADASIVA.AIYAR
Kamakshamma – Appellant
Versus
Emperor – Respondent


ORDER

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. There seems to be no provision of law which empowers the High Court to quash the conviction and sentence by a Sessions Judge and order a new trial because some of the material records of the Sessions trial have been lost. If the convicted prisoner appeals, then, it will be time enough to interfere if necessary. There is no provision of law (so far as I know) which enacts that, unless all the records of a case are in the court house, at the time of convicting and sentencing, the conviction and sentence are void, and should be quashed or that the Sessions Judges trial has been held without jurisdiction or the sentence passed without jurisdiction. If the convicted prisoner is satisfied that justice has been meted out to her, there is no ground for interference of this court. Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure only imposes the condition that the judgment should be pronounced in open Court and imposes a few other conditions, but such conditions do not include the condition that the record should not have been lost or that, if only a portion of the judgment (that relating to the conviction and sentence alone) is pronounced the conviction is illegal. I


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