Emperor Vs. J. John

Emperor vs J. John

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 14, 1922

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/451642

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/451642
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Stuart, J.
Decided On: Oct 14, 1922
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Act No. XLV of 1860 (Indian Penal Code), Sections 604, 323 - Compounding offences--Continuance of trial after composition of a compoundable offence. - - 323 of the Indian Penal Code were concerned, was clearly compounded.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

J. John

Legal References

Reported In: (1923)ILR45All145

Excerpt

act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), sections 604, 323 - compounding offences--continuance of trial after composition of a compoundable offence. - - 323 of the indian penal code were concerned, was clearly compounded.stuart, j.1. mr. sanyal, for sushil chandra chakraverti states that his client does not oppose the application. his client accepted the applicant's apology, and had no intention of proceeding with the case. he did not prosecute. he withdrew. the police, however, challaned under section 120, railways act, and he was called as a witness. the applicant was acquitted-under that charge.2. i accept the learned sessions judge's view. the case, in so far as the charges under sections 504 and. 323 of the indian penal code were concerned, was clearly compounded.3. i set aside the convictions and sentences and direct that fines, if paid, to be refunded.

Full Judgment

Stuart, J.

1. Mr. Sanyal, for Sushil Chandra Chakraverti states that his client does not oppose the application. His client accepted the applicant's apology, and had no intention of proceeding with the case. He did not prosecute. He withdrew. The police, however, challaned under Section 120, Railways Act, and he was called as a witness. The applicant was acquitted-under that charge.

2. I accept the learned Sessions Judge's view. The case, in so far as the charges under Sections 504 and. 323 of the Indian Penal Code were concerned, was clearly compounded.

3. I set aside the convictions and sentences and direct that fines, if paid, to be refunded.

Same Parties Emperor vs J. John Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Stuart, J.

Criminal