Jhagru and ors. Vs. Emperor

Jhagru and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 11, 1923

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484351

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/484351
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Daniels, J.
Decided On: Apr 11, 1923
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 413--Joint trial--Appealable and non-appealable sen-fences--Appeal whether lies against non-appealable sentence. -

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jhagru and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred: Bhola v. Emperor
Reported In: AIR1923All609; 73Ind.Cas.775

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 413--joint trial--appealable and non-appealable sen-fences--appeal whether lies against non-appealable sentence. - .....of appeal which he would otherwise not have. divergent views have been expressed on this subject but the latest published decisions of this court, which are referred to by the learned judge, namely, husain v. emperor khan 9 ind. cas. 690 : 39 a. 293 : 15 a.l.j 136 : 18 cr. l.j. 546 and. bhola v. emperor 40 ind. cas.3320 : 39 a. 549 : 15 a.l.j 5574 : 18 cr. l.j. 684, are against the contentions of the applicants. in the latter case piggott, j., stated that the practice of the court on the subject must be taken as settled. my own view is in accordance with these decisions and i accordingly decline to accept this plea. i may add that the in matter will soon cease to be of importance as section 413 is being altered in the amended code of criminal procedure.2. the learned judge dismissed the appeal of jhagru who did appeal. he was not, therefore, bound to send up the case of the other accused in revision under the rule laid down in bhola v. emperor 40 ind. cas.3320 : 39 a. 549 : 15 a.l.j 5574 : 18 cr. l.j. 684. the appellant contended that he should have done so because of a chance remark at the end of his judgment that it was possible that some of the other accused might be innocent but he was unable to help their. this is not a finding; it is merely a remark as to a possibility in the case of accused whose cases the learned judge had not considered in detail. the case is one in which small fines only were imposed and i am not prepared in revision to consider the evidence against each individual accused. i dismiss the application.

Full Judgment

Daniels, J.

1. This is a revision on behalf of ninteen persons who were tried jointly with one. Jhagru. Jhagru was given en appealable sentence and the applicant were given small sentnees of fine against which, they if had not been tried jointly with Jhagru, no appeal lay under the provisions of Section 413. The chief point raised by the revision is whether, if u person who is given a sentence which is ordinarily non-appealable is tried jointly with a person who is given a larger sentence, the former obtains a right of appeal which he would otherwise not have. Divergent views have been expressed on this subject but the latest published decisions of this Court, which are referred to by the learned judge, namely, Husain v. Emperor Khan 9 Ind. Cas. 690 : 39 A. 293 : 15 A.L.J 136 : 18 Cr. L.J. 546 and. Bhola v. Emperor 40 Ind. Cas.3320 : 39 A. 549 : 15 A.L.J 5574 : 18 Cr. L.J. 684, are against the contentions of the applicants. In the latter case Piggott, J., stated that the practice of the Court on the subject must be taken as settled. My own view is in accordance with these decisions and I accordingly decline to accept this plea. I may add that the in matter will soon cease to be of importance as Section 413 is being altered in the amended Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The learned Judge dismissed the appeal of Jhagru who did appeal. He was not, therefore, bound to send up the case of the other accused in revision under the rule laid down in Bhola v. Emperor 40 Ind. Cas.3320 : 39 A. 549 : 15 A.L.J 5574 : 18 Cr. L.J. 684. The appellant contended that he should have done so because of a chance remark at the end of his judgment that it was possible that some of the other accused might be innocent but he was unable to help their. This is not a finding; it is merely a remark as to a possibility in the case of accused whose cases the learned Judge had not considered in detail. The case is one in which small fines only were imposed and I am not prepared in revision to consider the evidence against each individual accused. I dismiss the application.

Same Parties Jhagru and ors. vs Emperor Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Daniels, J.

Land Acquisition