Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
GRIMWOOD MEARS, RYVES, JJ.
Jaisukh - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 09-07-1920
JUDGMENT
1. Jaisukh, accused, was charged before the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur with having brought about the death of one Udmi by administering arsenio. A great geal of evidence was taken, the assessors gave their opinion and the assessors were discharged and then it occurred to the learned Sessions Judge, when he was about to write his judgment, that he would like to put one or two questions to another man by name Jaisukh, son of Sahibu, who had originally been challenged with the accused but had been discharged by the Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge thought he would like to put further questions to another witness who had already given evidence. This he, in fact, did and did so in the absence of the assessors and he justifies having done that by placing reliance upon a decision of Mr. Justice Walsh who, in the case of Emperor v. Birbal (Criminal Appeal No. 580 of 1915, decided on the 22nd of September 1916), decided that a Judge after having discharged the assessors could, nevertheless, take further evidence. Now, Mr. Justice Walsh could have arrived at that decision only by the fact that the case of Queen-Empress v. Ram Lal 15 A. 136 : (1893) A.W.N. 50 : 7 Ind. Dec. 805 was not brought to his notice because that case is a distinct authority for the very salutary proposition that evidence must not be taken by a Sessions Judge unless that Sessions Judge has the two' assessors sitting with him, otherwise, if the Sessions Judge is sitting alone, he does not appear to be a Court, the Court being the Judge plus the assessors. We, therefore, think that the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in taking the evidence of Jaisukh, son of Sahibu, and the further evidence of Nanu Gara and, therefore, we are obliged to set aside the conviction and sentence, and we direct that the accused be tried de nono by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur as soon as possible.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
