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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 37

MURRAY COUTTS TROTTER, KT.
In Re: Veerappa Goundan – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Murray Coutts Trotter, Kt., C.J.

1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is quite definite as to the position of the verdict of a jury in the case of an appeal from the verdict of a jury which is dealt with in Chapter XXXI. By Section 418 it is enacted that

An appeal may lie on a matter of fact as well as a matter of law, except where the trial was by jury, in which case the appeal shall lie on a matter of law only.

And the same view is emphasized by Section 423 (2):

Nothing herein contained shall authorize the Court to alter or reverse the verdict of a jury, unless it is of opinion that such verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge, or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as Laid down by him.

2. The inference is that the draftsman of the Indian Statute was familiar with the English Law as Laid down in Solomon v. Bitton10 and so far as concerned appeals meant to enact that state of things for India. It may be useful to examine that decision in reference to the state of the law as it then stood. Before the Judicature Act, applications for a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was against the weight of the evidence came before













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