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.

Dashamani and ors. Vs. State of U.P.

Dashamani and ors. vs State of U.P.

Disposition Application allowed Court Allahabad Decided Jan 08, 1999
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/489968

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 Misc. Appln. No. 5065 of 1998
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Application allowed

Case Summary

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

- LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to acquire a particular land. Land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive No...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Application allowed
Acts & sections
Essential Commidities Act; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 235, 323 and 325; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 374(3) and 384

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dashamani and ors.

Advocate N.K. Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P.

Advocate A.G.A.

Legal References

Acts
Essential Commidities Act; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 235, 323 and 325; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 374(3) and 384
Reported In
1999CriLJ2338

Excerpt

.....of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - even though the particulars such as the sections under which appellant has been convicted, sentence awarded and the like are, to appear on the face of the appeal for purpose of clarity but if there is any accidental omission it will not seal the fate of the appellant.ordervirendra saran, j.1. the applicants dashamani and khilari alias dinesh were convicted by the learned 3rd additional munsif magistrate, gyanpur, district varanasi under sections 323 and 325, i.p.c. under section 323, i.p.c. they were awarded three months' r.i. and a fine of rs. 100/- each and under section 235, i.p.c. they were awarded one year's r.i. and a fine of rs. 500/- each. the applicants filed criminal appeal no. 67 of 1991 in the court of sessions at varanasi. the appeal came up for hearing before special judge (e.c. act)/additional sessions judge, varanasi and it was discovered that in the memo of appeal there was no mention of the sentence awarded to the applicants under section 325, i.p.c. thereupon the applicants made an application 24-kha dated 26- 2-1994 praying that they may be permitted to include section 325, i.p.c. in the memo of appeal. the learned additional sessions judge by his impugned order dated 11-11-1998 rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision in law for allowing such an amendment in the memo of appeal. the applicants have challenged this order by means of this application.2. i have heard sri n.k. sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, sri jagdish tiwari learned state counsel and sri jagdish singh sengar, learned counsel for the complainant.3. i have considered the points raised by the learned counsel on either side. section 374(3), cr.p.c. states :-374(3) - save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), any person,-(a) convicted on a trial held by a metropolitan magistrate or assistant sessions judge or magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or(b)to(c)...may appeal to the court of session.the language of the section is unambiguous and an appeal is provided against orders of conviction. whenever an appeal is preferred by a convict the judgment of conviction, as a whole, is under appeal and when such appeal is not dismissed summarily under section 384, the court is duty bound to dispose.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Virendra Saran, J.

1. The applicants Dashamani and Khilari alias Dinesh were convicted by the learned 3rd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Gyanpur, district Varanasi under Sections 323 and 325, I.P.C. Under Section 323, I.P.C. they were awarded three months' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and under Section 235, I.P.C. they were awarded one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. The applicants filed Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1991 in the Court of Sessions at Varanasi. The appeal came up for hearing before Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi and it was discovered that in the memo of appeal there was no mention of the sentence awarded to the applicants under Section 325, I.P.C. Thereupon the applicants made an application 24-Kha dated 26- 2-1994 praying that they may be permitted to include Section 325, I.P.C. in the memo of appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 11-11-1998 rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision in law for allowing such an amendment in the memo of appeal. The applicants have challenged this order by means of this application.

2. I have heard Sri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jagdish Tiwari learned State Counsel and Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the complainant.

3. I have considered the points raised by the learned counsel on either side. Section 374(3), Cr.P.C. states :-

374(3) - Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2), any person,-

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b)to(c)...

may appeal to the Court of Session.

The language of the Section is unambiguous and an appeal is provided against orders of conviction. Whenever an appeal is preferred by a convict the judgment of conviction, as a whole, is under appeal and when such appeal is not dismissed summarily under Section 384, the Court is duty bound to dispose it of on merits. Even though the particulars such as the sections under which appellant has been convicted, sentence awarded and the like are, to appear on the face of the appeal for purpose of clarity but if there is any accidental omission it will not seal the fate of the appellant. In a criminal case while judging the guilt of an accused hypertechnical rules of the pleadings cannot be allowed to intervene and come in the way of the Court to impart justice. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have exercised his judicial discretion by permitting the applicants to amend the appeal by mentioning Section 325 and the sentence awarded there under to do justice in the case.

4. Accordingly this application is allowed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned is directed to permit the applicants to amend the appeal by mentioning Section 325, I.P.C. and the sentence awarded there under in the memo of appeal. Needless to observe that the lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial