Sardar Vs. Emperor

Sardar vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 07, 1934

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/462629

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/462629
Court: Allahabad
Decided On: Feb 07, 1934
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - This omission on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sardar

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1934All693

Excerpt

- - this omission on the part of the sub-divisional magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial.thom, j.1. the applicant has been convicted under section 20, treasure trove act, 1878, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. it appears that the sub-divisional magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused and then proceeded to try it himself without having in accordance with the terms of section 191, criminal p.c., informed the applicant that he was entitled to have the case tried by another court. this omission on the part of the sub-divisional magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial. in the result the conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside and as he is on bail he need not surrender to his bail.

Full Judgment

Thom, J.

1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 20, Treasure Trove Act, 1878, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused and then proceeded to try it himself without having in accordance with the terms of Section 191, Criminal P.C., informed the applicant that he was entitled to have the case tried by another Court. This omission on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial. In the result the conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside and as he is on bail he need not surrender to his bail.

Same Parties Sardar vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal

Criminal