Emperor Vs. Ganda Singh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a.....orderkensington, j.1. the additional district magistrate, when sentencing ganda singh on the 19ih april 1910 (case no. 24-7 of 1910), overlooked the application of section 35, criminal procedure code.it is only in case of separate convictions at one trial that the question arises whether sentences should he concurrent or consecutive. in all other cases, section 397 is imperative.2. ganda singh had been previously convicted by the same magistrate on 30th march 1910 and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, since reduced to two years on appeal. the magistrate was not competent to direct that the fresh sentence of 19th april 1910 should run from the date of his order and that portion of his order is set aside.3. it seems to have been the magistrate's intention that ganda singh should undergo a total period of 4 years' imprisonment. to give effect to this intention, as near as may be, it is hereby ordered on revision that the second sentence of 19th april 1910 be so far reduced that the period of imprisonment for that offence shall be for two years instead of three years, to commence on expiry of the sentence awarded on the earlier conviction of 30th march 1910.

Judgment:

ORDER

Kensington, J.

1. The Additional District Magistrate, when sentencing Ganda Singh on the 19ih April 1910 (Case No. 24-7 of 1910), overlooked the application of Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code.

It is only in case of separate convictions at one trial that the question arises whether sentences should he concurrent or consecutive. In all other cases, Section 397 is imperative.

2. Ganda Singh had been previously convicted by the same Magistrate on 30th March 1910 and sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, since reduced to two years on appeal. The Magistrate was not competent to direct that the fresh sentence of 19th April 1910 should run from the date of his order and that portion of his order is set aside.

3. It seems to have been the Magistrate's intention that Ganda Singh should undergo a total period of 4 years' imprisonment. To give effect to this intention, as near as may be, it is hereby ordered on revision that the second sentence of 19th April 1910 be so far reduced that the period of imprisonment for that offence shall be for two years instead of three years, to commence on expiry of the sentence awarded on the earlier conviction of 30th March 1910.