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.

Daitari Das Vs. Queen-empress

Daitari Das vs Queen-empress

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 06, 1897
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/871613

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.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882), Section 35 - Sentence--Concurrent sentences of imprisonment--Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 409. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Daitari Das

Respondent

Queen-empress

Legal References

Cases Referred
Empress v. Wazir Jan
Reported In
(1898)ILR25Cal557

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 35 - sentence--concurrent sentences of imprisonment--penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 409. - .....seven years' rigorous imprisonment on each charge, with this qualification that the sentences are to run concurrently. we see no reason to interfere with the conviction; but in regard to the sentence, we are of opinion that it is not warranted by law. there is no provision in the code of criminal procedure, or in any other law that we are aware of, authorizing a court to pass sentences which are to run concurrently. on the contrary, section 35 of the code of criminal procedure enacts that ' when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more distinct offences, the court may sentence him, for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor, which such court is competent to inflict, such punishments, when consisting of imprisonment or transportation, to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the court may direct.'3. [559] we may also refer to the case of queen-empress v. wazir jan (1887) l.l.r 10 all. 58 which goes to support the same view. that being so, the concurrent sentences passed in this case must be set aside.4. the question then arises what should be the proper sentence in the case? we see no reason to dissent from the learned sessions judge's view that an aggregate sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment is required for the ends of justice; and our order, therefore, will be this-that the appellant be sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment in respect of the first count, one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of the second charge, and one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of the third, for the offences of criminal breach of trust as a public servant punishable under section 409 of the indian penal code. such sentences to run the one after the other in the order in which they have been mentioned above.

Full Judgment

Banerjee and Hill, JJ.

1. The appellant in this ease was tried before the Sessions Court of Cuttack on three charges under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed criminal breach of trust as a public servant in respect of three different sums of money.

2. The learned Sessions Judge, agreeing with the assessors, has found the accused guilty on all the three charges, and has sentenced him under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code to seven years' rigorous imprisonment on each charge, with this qualification that the sentences are to run concurrently. We see no reason to interfere with the conviction; but in regard to the sentence, we are of opinion that it is not warranted by law. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in any other law that we are aware of, authorizing a Court to pass sentences which are to run concurrently. On the contrary, Section 35 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enacts that ' when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more distinct offences, the Court may sentence him, for such offences, to the several punishments prescribed therefor, which such Court is competent to inflict, such punishments, when consisting of imprisonment or transportation, to commence the one after the expiration of the other in such order as the Court may direct.'

3. [559] We may also refer to the case of Queen-Empress v. Wazir Jan (1887) L.L.R 10 All. 58 which goes to support the same view. That being so, the concurrent sentences passed in this case must be set aside.

4. The question then arises what should be the proper sentence in the case? We see no reason to dissent from the learned Sessions Judge's view that an aggregate sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment is required for the ends of justice; and our order, therefore, will be this-that the appellant be sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment in respect of the first count, one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of the second charge, and one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of the third, for the offences of criminal breach of trust as a public servant punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Such sentences to run the one after the other in the order in which they have been mentioned above.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial