Gyansing Prabhatsingh Vs. State

Gyansing Prabhatsingh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Gujarat Decided Jan 25, 1962

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/737359

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/737359
Court: Gujarat High Court
Judge: V.B. Raju, J.
Decided On: Jan 25, 1962
Case Number: Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 390 of 1961
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- - and therefore the trial is bad.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 239; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gyansing Prabhatsingh

Advocate A.H. Mehta, Adv.

Respondent

State

Advocate H.M. Ghoksi, Govt. Pleader

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 239; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 279 and 304A
Reported In: AIR1963Guj275; 1963CriLJ519

Excerpt

- - and therefore the trial is bad.orderv.b. raju, j.1. the main point argued in this revision application is that two persons, viz., the driver of a motor-car and the driver of a motor-truck coming from different directions collided and they were tried in one tfial for offences under sections. 279 and 304a i.p.c. and therefore the trial is bad. the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in view of the provisions of section 239 cr. p. c. in such a case it cannot be said that there is one transaction in which different offences have been eommttted. the conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and a re-trial is ordered.

Full Judgment

ORDER

V.B. Raju, J.

1. The main point argued in this revision application is that two persons, viz., the driver of a motor-car and the driver of a motor-truck coming from different directions collided and they were tried in one tfial for offences under Sections. 279 and 304A I.P.C. and therefore the trial is bad. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in view of the provisions of Section 239 Cr. P. C. In such a case it cannot be said that there is one transaction in which different offences have been eommttted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner are, therefore, set aside and a re-trial is ordered.

Same Parties Gyansing Prabhatsingh vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge V.B. Raju, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 239; Indi...

Criminal