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.

Umed Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor

Umed Singh and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 09, 1909
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471412

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), Section 235 - Joinder of charges--Trial for eight distinct offences at one and the same time--Retrial. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Umed Singh and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
5Ind.Cas.178

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 235 - joinder of charges--trial for eight distinct offences at one and the same time--retrial. - tudball, j.1. the two appellants, umed singh and tilok singh, were tried at one and the same trial in the court of the deputy commissioner and district magistrate of almora on ten distinct charges of offences under section 161, indian penal code. of these ten charges, two might possibly be said to be part and parcel of the same transaction. the remainder were distinct and separate offences. briefly put, the fact alleged by the prosecution are as follows: a theft or series of thefts had taken place at the house of general wheeler of jalna. the two appellants were ordered to investigate and the case against them is that they arrested people and then after extorting money from them, allowed them to go. the district magistrate has held that six of the charges are proved and has convicted and sentenced the appellants thereon. it is quite clear that the trial is an illegality and that the convictions and sentences must be set aside. the ruling of the privy council in subrah mania ayyar v. king-emperor 25 m. 61 (p.c.) : 28 i.a. 257 is clear upon this point. the court ought to have selected three of the charges against the appellants and to have tried them on those charges only, at one and the same trial. as the trial ended in a conviction i must order the retrial of the appellants according to law. the charges must be divided into several batches of three or less in number and each batch must form the subject of a separate trial. the appellants will have to surrender.2. as the magistrate who tried the case has already formed an opinion on the evidence on the record and has expressed the same, it is only fair to the accused that they should be tried by another magistrate, who has, formed no opinion. i, therefore, order that the case be tried by mr. shaw, deputy magistrate of almora, who has first class powers.

Full Judgment

Tudball, J.

1. The two appellants, Umed Singh and Tilok Singh, were tried at one and the same trial in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of Almora on ten distinct charges of offences under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. Of these ten charges, two might possibly be said to be part and parcel of the same transaction. The remainder were distinct and separate offences. Briefly put, the fact alleged by the prosecution are as follows: A theft or series of thefts had taken place at the house of General Wheeler of Jalna. The two appellants were ordered to investigate and the case against them is that they arrested people and then after extorting money from them, allowed them to go. The District Magistrate has held that six of the charges are proved and has convicted and sentenced the appellants thereon. It is quite clear that the trial is an illegality and that the convictions and sentences must be set aside. The ruling of the Privy Council in Subrah mania Ayyar v. King-Emperor 25 M. 61 (P.C.) : 28 I.A. 257 is clear upon this point. The Court ought to have selected three of the charges against the appellants and to have tried them on those charges only, at one and the same trial. As the trial ended in a conviction I must order the retrial of the appellants according to law. The charges must be divided into several batches of three or less in number and each batch must form the subject of a separate trial. The appellants will have to surrender.

2. As the Magistrate who tried the case has already formed an opinion on the evidence on the record and has expressed the same, it is only fair to the accused that they should be tried by another Magistrate, who has, formed no opinion. I, therefore, order that the case be tried by Mr. Shaw, Deputy Magistrate of Almora, who has first class powers.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial