D.P.UNIYAL, KAILASH PRASAD
RAM SWARUP – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent
UNIYAL, J.
( 1 ) THIS reference raises an important question with regard to the true scope and effect of Section 116 (d) Cr. P. C. (Amendment) Act XXVI of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act.
( 2 ) THE facts are briefly stated as follows. The appellant was prosecuted under Sections 409 and 477-A I. P. C. The trial of the accused commenced on 17-10-55 in the court of Sri Onkar Singh, sessions Judge of Pilibhit, with the aid of assessors. After a substantial part of the prosecution evidence had been recorded the accused came up in Revision to the High Court and obtained the stay of further proceedings in the case. The Revision was dismissed sometime in July 1959 and the case was then sent back to the Sessions Judge for trial. During the pendency of the said revision, however, two events had. occurred; one was the coming into force on. 2-1-50 of the cr. P. C. (Amendment) Act XXVI of 1955, and the other was the posting of Sri Visheshwari Pd. Mathur as Sessions Judge in place of Sri Onkar Singh since transferred. This time the trial of the accused commenced before the new Sessions Judge without the aid of assessors in accordance with the Amending Act. The Sessions Judge ev
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.