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.

Manna and ors. Vs. State

Manna and ors. vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Nov 27, 1953
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/468036

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. No. 181 of 1952
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal - summons - Section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 - application of Section 342 to summons and warrant cases - opportunity to defend given to the accused on the basis of evidence. - - applies both to summons as well as to warrant cases. It may well be that there is much to be said in support of eit...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 342

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Manna and ors.

Advocate Narain Sahai and ;H.N. Seth, Advs.

Respondent

State

Advocate D.P. Uniyal, Dy. Govt. Adv.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1954All578

Excerpt

criminal - summons - section 342 of criminal procedure code, 1898 - application of section 342 to summons and warrant cases - opportunity to defend given to the accused on the basis of evidence. - - applies both to summons as well as to warrant cases. it may well be that there is much to be said in support of either view, but the preponderance of opinion has been in favour of the view that section 342 applies both to summons and warrant cases.malik, c.j. 1. this case has been referred to a larger bench by a learned single judge of this court on the ground that there is a full bench decision of the madras high court* and a full bench decision of the rangoon high. court which are contrary to the view taken by this court that section 342, criminal p. c. applies both to summons as well as to warrant cases. the last decision of this court mentioned by the learned single judge is -- 'sia ram v. emperor : air1935 all217 . that was a decision of a division bench, the learned chief justice, sulaiman, c. j, in that case observed as follows:'it may well be that there is much to be said in support of either view, but the preponderance of opinion has been in favour of the view that section 342 applies both to summons and warrant cases.'2. we are bound by the decision of the bench mentioned above and it is, therefore, not possible for us to take a contrary view. in view of the series of decisions of this court and the fact that section 342, criminal p. c. is for the benefit of an accused person to enable him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, it does not seem necessary to refer this case to a larger bench.3. we, therefore, send the case back to the learned single judge for decision.

Full Judgment

Malik, C.J.

1. This case has been referred to a larger bench by a learned single Judge of this Court on the ground that there is a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court* and a Full Bench decision of the Rangoon High. Court which are contrary to the view taken by this Court that Section 342, Criminal P. C. applies both to summons as well as to warrant cases. The last decision of this Court mentioned by the learned single Judge is -- 'Sia Ram v. Emperor : AIR1935 All217 . That was a decision of a division bench, The learned Chief Justice, sulaiman, C. J, in that case observed as follows:

'It may well be that there is much to be said in support of either view, but the preponderance of opinion has been in favour of the view that Section 342 applies both to summons and warrant cases.'

2. We are bound by the decision of the bench mentioned above and it is, therefore, not possible for us to take a contrary view. In view of the series of decisions of this Court and the fact that Section 342, Criminal P. C. is for the benefit of an accused person to enable him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, it does not seem necessary to refer this case to a larger bench.

3. We, therefore, send the case back to the learned single Judge for decision.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial