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. Bidha

Emperor vs Bidha

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Oct 31, 1923
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/465163

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.

Act No. XLV of 1860 (Indian Penal Code), Section 73 - Act No. III of 1911 (Criminal Tribes Act), Section 22--Solitary confinement not authorised on a conviction under the Criminal Tribes Act. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Bidha

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1924All319; (1924)ILR46All114; 81Ind.Cas.142

Excerpt

act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), section 73 - act no. iii of 1911 (criminal tribes act), section 22--solitary confinement not authorised on a conviction under the criminal tribes act. - sulaiman, j.1. in this case the accused was convicted under section 22 of the criminal tribes act (no. iii of 1911) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year including one month's solitary confinement.2. the learned district magistrate has referred the case to the high court with a recommendation that so much of the sentence as relates to the solitary confinement be set aside. this reference must be accepted.3. solitary confinements are imposed under section 73 of the indian penal code. under that section, whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which, under that code, the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion of the imprisonment to which he has been sentenced. under that section there is no authority for imposing a sentence of solitary confinement when a person is convicted under some other criminal act. the criminal tribes act (no. iii of 1911) makes no provision for imposing a sentence of solitary confinement on persons convicted under that act. i am, therefore, of opinion that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to order that any part of the sentience on the accused should be one of solitary confinement. i accordingly set aside that part of the order. let the record be returned.

Full Judgment

Sulaiman, J.

1. In this case the accused was convicted under Section 22 of the Criminal Tribes Act (No. III of 1911) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year including one month's solitary confinement.

2. The learned District Magistrate has referred the case to the High Court with a recommendation that so much of the sentence as relates to the solitary confinement be set aside. This reference must be accepted.

3. Solitary confinements are imposed under Section 73 of the Indian Penal Code. Under that section, whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which, under that Code, the court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the court may, by its sentence, order that the offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion of the imprisonment to which he has been sentenced. Under that section there is no authority for imposing a sentence of solitary confinement when a person is convicted under some other Criminal Act. The Criminal Tribes Act (No. III of 1911) makes no provision for imposing a sentence of solitary confinement on persons convicted under that Act. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to order that any part of the sentience on the accused should be one of solitary confinement. I accordingly set aside that part of the order. Let the record be returned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial