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

1958 Supreme(Ori) 71

R.L.NARASIMHAM
BIDYADHAR TUNGA SAMANTRA – Appellant
Versus
DAITARI RANA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.C.MOHANTY, H.KANUNGO, P.K.MOHANTY

R. L. NARASIMHAM, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition in revision against the appellate judgment of the Sessions judge of Cuttack allowing Criminal Appeal No. 7-N of 1957, on his file and setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the opposite party by a Third Class magistrate of Tigiria and remanding the case for rehearing. Nine members of the opposite party were tried in the Court of that Magistrate for offences under sections 143/447 I. P. C. and 426 I. P. C. The learned Magistrate convicted them all under Section 143/447 I. P. C. but acquitted them of the offence under Section 426 I. P. C. On appeal before the learned Sessions Judge the main question of law that was urged was that the learned Magistrate omitted to comply with the provisions of Section 242 Cr. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge thought that such an omission was an incurable illegality. He relied on Express Dairy Ltd. v. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1950 Cal 61 and Mastan Singh v. State AIR 1953 Pepsu 125. Hence, without examining the question of prejudice he set aside the conviction and sentence and directed retrial.

( 2 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, there is sharp conflict of judicial opinion as to whether noncompliance w




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