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

1956 Supreme(All) 138

DESAI
MOHAMMADI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE applicant lias challenged his conviction on the sole ground that he was not charged as a previous convict in compliance with the provisions of Section 221 (7), Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) ALL that is laid down in Section 221 (7) of the Code is that: if the accused having been previously convicted of any offence, is liable by reason of such previous conviction, to enhanced punishment, or to punishment of a different kind, for a subsequent offence, and it is intended to prove such previous conviction for the purpose of affecting the punishment which the Court may think fit to award for the subsequent offence, the fact, date and place of the previous conviction shall be stated in the charge. The applicant was tried for an offence of 380, I. P. C. which is punishable with an imprisonment for seven years. He was tried before a Magistrate who could inflict an imprisonment extending to two years only. Under Section 75 of the Penal Code, whoever having been convicted of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of the Penal Code with imprisonment for a term of three years or upwards is guilty of an offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonme





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