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.

Gopal Vs. Emperor

Gopal vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 12, 1932
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/456183

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
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 262(2), 349 - Summary trial--Reference to District Magistrate for higher sentence--Imposition of higher sentence without hearing case de novo--Legality. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopal

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1932All507; 137Ind.Cas.208a

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 262(2), 349 - summary trial--reference to district magistrate for higher sentence--imposition of higher sentence without hearing case de novo--legality. - boys, j.1. the accused was tried summarily by an honorary magistrate on a charge under section 379, i.p.c., and the magistrate having only third class powers thought that the sentence he could give was not sufficient, and referred the ease under section 349, criminal p.c., to the district magistrate, who without taking any further evidence or hearing the case anew in any way at all, sentenced the accused to a year's rigorous imprisonment. it is urged, and rightly urged that this is in conflict with section 262(2), criminal p.c. the trial was originally a summary trial, and its nature could not be altered by the mere fact of a reference under section 349. the case might be otherwise if the district magistrate had really heard the case de novo at full length in accordance with the regular procedure. but that is not the case here. i reduce the sentence to one of three months' rigorous imprisonment. the applicant will surrender to his bail. i am told that there is only a fortnight of the sentence to serve. but both courts thought that he deserved at least three months and i see no reason to interfere in this respet.

Full Judgment

Boys, J.

1. The accused was tried summarily by an Honorary Magistrate on a charge under Section 379, I.P.C., and the Magistrate having only Third Class powers thought that the sentence he could give was not sufficient, and referred the ease under Section 349, Criminal P.C., to the District Magistrate, who without taking any further evidence or hearing the case anew in any way at all, sentenced the accused to a year's rigorous imprisonment. It is urged, and rightly urged that this is in conflict with Section 262(2), Criminal P.C. The trial was originally a summary trial, and its nature could not be altered by the mere fact of a reference under Section 349. The case might be otherwise if the District Magistrate had really heard the case de novo at full length in accordance with the regular procedure. But that is not the case here. I reduce the sentence to one of three months' rigorous imprisonment. The applicant will surrender to his bail. I am told that there is only a fortnight of the sentence to serve. But both Courts thought that he deserved at least three months and I see no reason to interfere in this respet.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial