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.

Ganga Prasad Vs. Emperor

Ganga Prasad vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Sep 16, 1922
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/480991

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 107, 117(4), 233, 535 - Security proceedings--Joint trial, whether permissible--Joint trial--Charge framed against one accused and not against other--Irregularity. - - It is not illegal to hold a joint trial under Section 107. Section 117(4) clearly shows that.

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ganga Prasad

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred
Har Dutt Panda v. Emperor
Reported In
76Ind.Cas.568

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 107, 117(4), 233, 535 - security proceedings--joint trial, whether permissible--joint trial--charge framed against one accused and not against other--irregularity. - - it is not illegal to hold a joint trial under section 107. section 117(4) clearly shows that.stuart, j.1. i do not agree with the view taken by the learned sessions judge. it is not illegal to hold a joint trial under section 107. section 117(4) clearly shows that.2. the learned sessions judge appears to be referring to the decision of har dutt panda v. emperor 33 ind. cas. 645 : 14 a.l.j. 268 : 17 cr. l.j. 165. that decision does not lay down that the learned judge appears to think that it does lay down. it lays down that the joint trial of two contending parties should not be allowed in a 107-proceeding. i find that ganga pershad and parshadi lal were not contending parties but were on the same side. the complaint had been made against them jointly.3. on the merits i find no reason to interfere with the order passed against ganga pershad.4. the omission to frame a charge did not prejudice him in any way.5. i refuse to interfere and direct that the record be returned.

Full Judgment

Stuart, J.

1. I do not agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. It is not illegal to hold a joint trial under Section 107. Section 117(4) clearly shows that.

2. The learned Sessions Judge appears to be referring to the decision of Har Dutt Panda v. Emperor 33 Ind. Cas. 645 : 14 A.L.J. 268 : 17 Cr. L.J. 165. That decision does not lay down that the learned Judge appears to think that it does lay down. It lays down that the joint trial of two contending parties should not be allowed in a 107-proceeding. I find that Ganga Pershad and Parshadi Lal were not contending parties but were on the same side. The complaint had been made against them jointly.

3. On the merits I find no reason to interfere with the order passed against Ganga Pershad.

4. The omission to frame a charge did not prejudice him in any way.

5. I refuse to interfere and direct that the record be returned.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial