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.

ishwar Das Darjee Vs. State of Sikkim

ishwar Das Darjee vs State of Sikkim

Disposition Petition allowed Court Sikkim Decided Sep 04, 1998
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/497038

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
Sikkim High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 2 of 1998
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Petition allowed
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 403 and 408

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ishwar Das Darjee

Advocate B. Sharma, Adv.

Respondent

State of Sikkim

Advocate S.P. Wangdi, Addl. Adv. General

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 403 and 408
Reported In
1998CriLJ4447

Excerpt

- .....ld. p.p. shri n.t. bhutia for the state.accused on bail in person.today is the date fixed for appearance. it is prayed for time to engage counsel.considered, time allowed.to 23-2-1998.sd/-cjm (e&n;).4. it appears that 23-2-1998 was not fixed for consideration of charge. a charge must contain time, place, person and circumstances of the offence which give the accused an idea of the case which he has to meet. it may not contain elaborate details but there should be no doubt left in the mind of the-accused as to what is the case against him and what allegations he has to meet. if it does not fulfil these conditions, it is not a proper charge. the object in framing a charge is to give notice of the essential facts which the prosecution proposes to establish to bring home the charge to the accused so that he may not be prejudiced in his defence.5. in view of reasons stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 of the orders passed in criminal revision no. 1 of 1998, the order passed on 23-2-1998 by the chief judicial magistrate, east and north at gangtok in criminal case no. 208 of 1997 is set aside and the case is remanded to the chief judicial magistrate, east and north and he shall modify the charges in the light of discussions made in criminal revision no. 1 of 1998, if he considers necessary after hearing the accused.6. in the result, the revision succeeds.7. records of the lower court be sent at once and the chief judicial magistrate, east and north is directed to complete the trial by 31-12-1998.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Anup Deb, Acting C.J.

1. By filing this revision application, the accused has challenged the Order dated 23-2-1998 passed in Criminal Case No. 208 of 1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North, Gangtok whereby the accused had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- or in default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for an offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C.). The accused has also been convicted for offence under Section 408 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and in default of payment of fine the accused was to undergo further simple imprsonment for six months and the sentences were to run concurrently.

2. The ground taken is that the accused was deaf and as such the accused did not understand the intent and purport of the charge.

3. It appears from the order dated 11-2-1998 that the accused made prayer to engage a counsel and the next date was fixed on 23-2-1998. Order dated 11-2-1998 is extracted below :-

11-2-98. Ld. P.P. Shri N.T. Bhutia for the State.

Accused on bail in person.

Today is the date fixed for appearance. It is prayed for time to engage counsel.

Considered, time allowed.

To 23-2-1998.

Sd/-CJM (E&N;).

4. It appears that 23-2-1998 was not fixed for consideration of charge. A charge must contain time, place, person and circumstances of the offence which give the accused an idea of the case which he has to meet. It may not contain elaborate details but there should be no doubt left in the mind of the-accused as to what is the case against him and what allegations he has to meet. If it does not fulfil these conditions, it is not a proper charge. The object in framing a charge is to give notice of the essential facts which the prosecution proposes to establish to bring home the charge to the accused so that he may not be prejudiced in his defence.

5. In view of reasons stated in paragraphs 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11 of the orders passed in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1998, the order passed on 23-2-1998 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North at Gangtok in Criminal Case No. 208 of 1997 is set aside and the case is remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North and he shall modify the charges in the light of discussions made in Criminal Revision No. 1 of 1998, if he considers necessary after hearing the accused.

6. In the result, the revision succeeds.

7. Records of the lower Court be sent at once and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, East and North is directed to complete the trial by 31-12-1998.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial