Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Imam Hasan

Emperor vs imam Hasan

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Feb 08, 1923
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/327894

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 1922
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898 at amended by Act X of 1914), Section 47 - Lunatic-Court to past order as to his detention ant safe custody-Report to Local Government not necessary.; Under the amended Section 471 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court, in a case where it finds Chat an offence has been comm...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

imam Hasan

Legal References

Reported In
(1923)25BOMLR286; 84Ind.Cas.652

Excerpt

.....would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. - under section 471, criminal procedure code, we directed that he should be kept in safe custody in the place where he was then confined, and that the papers of the case should be sent to the local government to pass such orders as might to them seem expedient. 5. apart from the question whether as a matter of fact the courts have now any power to make such a report, it seems to me that the intention of the legislature, when amending section 471 by leaving out those words, was that the court, in a case where it has been found that an offence has been committed by a lunatic, should confine itself to making an order that he should be kept in safe custody in such place and manner as the court thinks fit. 6. therefore we set aside the order we passed on the previous occasion, dated november 3o, 1922, and we direct that the accused should be kept in safe custody in the place where he is now kept......no direction that the court should report the case for the orders of the local government, with all respect, i cannot see any necessity why the courts should continue to follow the old procedure.5. apart from the question whether as a matter of fact the courts have now any power to make such a report, it seems to me that the intention of the legislature, when amending section 471 by leaving out those words, was that the court, in a case where it has been found that an offence has been committed by a lunatic, should confine itself to making an order that he should be kept in safe custody in such place and manner as the court thinks fit. then it is for the government under their own powers to decide the future fate of the person concerned. instructions have been given to judicial and executive officers in dealing with criminal lunatics, by a government resolution of augusts 30, 1921, in the home department, no. 8512 ; and the officers concerned will no doubt follow those instructions as soon as an order is made by the court under section 471, criminal procedure code.6. therefore we set aside the order we passed on the previous occasion, dated november 3o, 1922, and we direct that the accused should be kept in safe custody in the place where he is now kept.crump, j.7. i agree that in view of the amendment of section 471, criminal procedure code, there is now no longer any necessity for a court which acquits a person on the ground of insanity to report the case for the orders of the local government. clauses (2) and (3) of that section were repealed by act iv of 1912, mainly with the object of relieving the local government from the necessity of dealing with the cases of such persons, but after that was done, it was found that the last twelve words in the first clause of section 471 had remained unrepealed, and the position was that the courts were bound to report the case for the orders of the local government, while the local government had ceased to have power.....

Full Judgment

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. In this case the accused was found guilty by the Sessions Judge of two offences under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced for each offence to transportation for life.

2. On appeal, we came to the conclusion that the evidence showed that the man was not of sound mind at the time when he committed these acts in the sense either that he knew the nature of his acts, or that he knew that they were wrong or Contrary to law. We held that he was entitled to an acquittal on the ground of insanity. Under Section 471, Criminal Procedure Code, we directed that he should be kept in safe custody in the place where he was then confined, and that the papers of the case should be sent to the Local Government to pass such orders as might to them seem expedient. We followed the procedure laid down in Emperor v. Somya Hirya Mahar : (1918)20BOMLR629 .

3. We have since received a letter from Government, dated January 12, 1923, pointing out to us that under Section 471, Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Act X of 1914, it is for the High Court to pass the necessary orders, or direct the Sessions Judge, Dharwar to pass them under Government Resolution, Home Department, No. 8512, dated August 30, 1921.

4. In the above-mentioned case it appeared to the Court that the omission of the words 'and shall report the case for the orders of the Local Government' in Section 471, Criminal Procedure Code, directed by Act X of 1914, made no substantial change in the law relating to lunatics under the Code, and that the powers of the Court and of the Government were not altered by the repeal of those words, But as the section now contains no direction that the Court should report the case for the orders of the Local Government, with all respect, I cannot see any necessity why the Courts should continue to follow the old procedure.

5. Apart from the question whether as a matter of fact the Courts have now any power to make such a report, it seems to me that the intention of the Legislature, when amending Section 471 by leaving out those words, was that the Court, in a case where it has been found that an offence has been committed by a lunatic, should confine itself to making an order that he should be kept in safe custody in such place and manner as the Court thinks fit. Then it is for the Government under their own powers to decide the future fate of the person concerned. Instructions have been given to Judicial and Executive officers in dealing with criminal lunatics, by a Government Resolution of Augusts 30, 1921, in the Home Department, No. 8512 ; and the officers concerned will no doubt follow those instructions as soon as an order is made by the Court under Section 471, Criminal Procedure Code.

6. Therefore we set aside the order we passed on the previous occasion, dated November 3O, 1922, and we direct that the accused should be kept in safe custody in the place where he is now kept.

Crump, J.

7. I agree that in view of the amendment of Section 471, Criminal Procedure Code, there is now no longer any necessity for a Court which acquits a person on the ground of insanity to report the case for the orders of the Local Government. Clauses (2) and (3) of that section were repealed by Act IV of 1912, mainly with the object of relieving the Local Government from the necessity of dealing with the cases of such persons, But after that was done, it was found that the last twelve words in the first clause of Section 471 had remained unrepealed, and the position was that the Courts were bound to report the case for the orders of the Local Government, while the Local Government had ceased to have power to act on such report. Therefore the last twelve words in Section 471, Clause (1), were repealed by Act X of 1914. The position is now (in my opinion) clear, and there is no longer any ground for supposing that any report is necessary in such cases. With all deference I am unable to agree with the decision in Emperor v. Somya Hirya Mahar : (1918)20BOMLR629 , in so far as it lays down that there has been no alteration in the law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial