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.

Roja Kamalam Vs. the State

Roja Kamalam vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 16, 1970
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/790162

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
Chennai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. Case No. 1286 of 1969, (Case Refd. No. 13 of 1969)
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 380; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 423(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Roja Kamalam

Respondent

The State

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1971Mad41; 1971CriLJ61

Excerpt

- order1. one roja kamalam was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for an offence under section 380, i.p.c. by the sub-magistrate, ulundurpet in c. c. no. 1571 of 1969 on his file. the age of this accused was taken as 21 by the learned magistrate. there was an appeal to the sub-divisional magistrate, ulundurpet in c. a. 45 of 1969, and before him the appellant-accused produced a medical certificate to show that here age was about 20. while disposing of this appeal, the learned sub-divisional magistrate confirmed the conviction and remanded the case to the sub-magistrate, observing that the matter should be dealt with under the provisions of the probation of offenders act, if the age was found to be 20.2. there can be no remand of a case for the purpose of passing a proper sentence. under section 423(1)(b) of the criminal procedure code, the appellate courts has power to reverse the finding and sentence and either acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction. the conviction and sentence should be set aside before ordering a retrial. the procedure followed by the learned sub-divisional magistrate is not correct. the order passed by him is set aside. he shall restore the appeal to his file and dispose of the matter according to law. the reference is accepted. the criminal case is allowed.3. revision allowed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. One Roja Kamalam was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for an offence under Section 380, I.P.C. by the Sub-Magistrate, Ulundurpet in C. C. No. 1571 of 1969 on his file. The age of this accused was taken as 21 by the learned Magistrate. There was an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ulundurpet in C. A. 45 of 1969, and before him the appellant-accused produced a medical certificate to show that here age was about 20. While disposing of this appeal, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate confirmed the conviction and remanded the case to the Sub-Magistrate, observing that the matter should be dealt with under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, if the age was found to be 20.

2. There can be no remand of a case for the purpose of passing a proper sentence. Under Section 423(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellate courts has power to reverse the finding and sentence and either acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a court of competent jurisdiction. The conviction and sentence should be set aside before ordering a retrial. The procedure followed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not correct. The order passed by him is set aside. He shall restore the appeal to his file and dispose of the matter according to law. the reference is accepted. The criminal case is allowed.

3. Revision allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial