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.

Kanchan Mallik Vs. Emperor

Kanchan Mallik vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 18, 1914
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/855291

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
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Appeal - Criminal case--Practice--Duly of Appellate Court in dealing with the evidence on appeal--Proper standpoint--Conviction not to lie upheld unless guilt beyond reasonable doubt affirmatively established--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898) Section 483. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kanchan Mallik

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
(1915)ILR42Cal374

Excerpt

appeal - criminal case--practice--duly of appellate court in dealing with the evidence on appeal--proper standpoint--conviction not to lie upheld unless guilt beyond reasonable doubt affirmatively established--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) section 483. - .....khulna to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside and such other or further order made as to this court might seem fit and proper on the ground that, at the hearing of the appeal by the learned sessions judge, the learned sessions judge approached the consideration of the case from a wrong standpoint. on turning to his judgment we find that he opens his judgment as follows; 'the prosecution has examined nine witnesses and the defence two coat of five in all) to prove the rival occurrences. the lower court with the witnesses before it has believed the former, and unless reasonable ground is given me for differing i must accept that finding of fact.' that is to say he has practically called upon the appellants before him to establish to his satisfaction that the first court has come to a wrong finding. this is not the standpoint from which an appeal in a criminal case is to be approached. in an appeal from a conviction and sentence, it is for the appellate court, as for the first court, to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true, and that the guilt of the appellants has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. we are therefore, of opinion, that the order of the appellate court must be set aside, and we accordingly set it aside and direct, that the appeal be re-heard. at the rehearing of the appeal, it will be for the consideration of the sessions judge whether the cumulative sentences in. the ease of harmuz ali ought or ought not to be affirmed. in these terms we make the hale absolute.

Full Judgment

Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.

1. In this case the petitioners were convicted under Sections 186 and 144 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3, to three months- rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 under each Section, and petitioner No. 2, Harmuz Ali, who is said to be a boy of 13 or 14 years of age, to pay a line of Rs. 25 under each Section. The sentences of imprisonment on the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 were to run concurrently. They obtained a Rule from this Court calling upon the District Magistrate of Khulna to show cause why the order complained of should not be set aside and such other or further order made as to this Court might seem fit and proper on the ground that, at the hearing of the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge approached the consideration of the case from a wrong standpoint. On turning to his judgment we find that he opens his judgment as follows; 'The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and the defence two Coat of five in all) to prove the rival occurrences. The lower Court with the witnesses before it has believed the former, and unless reasonable ground is given me for differing I must accept that finding of fact.' That is to say he has practically called upon the appellants before him to establish to his satisfaction that the first Court has come to a wrong finding. This is not the standpoint from which an appeal in a criminal case is to be approached. In an appeal from a conviction and sentence, it is for the Appellate Court, as for the first Court, to be satisfied affirmatively that the prosecution case is substantially true, and that the guilt of the appellants has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. We are therefore, of opinion, that the order of the Appellate Court must be set aside, and we Accordingly set it aside and direct, that the appeal be re-heard. At the rehearing of the appeal, it will be for the consideration of the Sessions Judge whether the cumulative sentences in. the ease of Harmuz Ali ought or ought not to be affirmed. In these terms we make the Hale absolute.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial