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.

Emperor Vs. Romesh Chandra Gupta

Emperor vs Romesh Chandra Gupta

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 29, 1917
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/878872

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
MRTP

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 439(2), interpretation of - Enhancement of sentence, whether can be ordered without hearing accused. -

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Romesh Chandra Gupta

Legal References

Reported In
46Ind.Cas.157

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 439(2), interpretation of - enhancement of sentence, whether can be ordered without hearing accused. - .....again pleaded guilty. it further appears that the money misappropriated, has been made good by his relatives. now these are all matters which may properly be taken into account on the question of sentence. but still we cannot but think that the sentence of one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of rs. 50 is not an adequate punishment for the offence committed. his age was also taken into account. but it appears that he is of the age of 25, that is to say, he is of an age when it should have been possible for him to resist a temptation of the sort held out.2. in considering what sentence we should now inflict upon him we ought, however, to consider further the period that has elapsed since his conviction on the 15th november 1916 and also the fact that under an order of this court passed on the 11th may he has in fact suffered 7 days' rigorous imprisonment. since then, too, and also in the proceedings before the district magistrate he has had to undergo a very considerable expenditure. further since the initiation of these proceedings, he or his relatives have no doubt suffered great anxiety,3. taking all the circumstances into account we think that it will be now sufficient for the ends of justice if, maintaining the sentence of fine, we impose upon the accused the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months to run from the date on which he surrenders.4. the accused will now be called upon to surrender and undergo the sentence now passed upon him.

Full Judgment

Teunon and Huda, JJ.

1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of Tipperah under the provisions of Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the accused with whose case we are now dealing one Romesh Chandra Gupta was employed in Chandpur Post Office as a postal clerk, and it has been found that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 151 8-0 made over to him by the addressee of a value payable parcel. When his offence was detected, he admitted his guilt to his superior officer and subsequently to the departmental officer who held an enquiry into the matter. When placed on his trial he again pleaded guilty. It further appears that the money misappropriated, has been made good by his relatives. Now these are all matters which may properly be taken into account on the question of sentence. But still we cannot but think that the sentence of one day's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 is not an adequate punishment for the offence committed. His age was also taken into account. But it appears that he is of the age of 25, that is to say, he is of an age when it should have been possible for him to resist a temptation of the sort held out.

2. In considering what sentence we should now inflict upon him we ought, however, to consider further the period that has elapsed since his conviction on the 15th November 1916 and also the fact that under an order of this Court passed on the 11th May he has in fact suffered 7 days' rigorous imprisonment. Since then, too, and also in the proceedings before the District Magistrate he has had to undergo a very considerable expenditure. Further since the initiation of these proceedings, he or his relatives have no doubt suffered great anxiety,

3. Taking all the circumstances into account we think that it will be now sufficient for the ends of justice if, maintaining the sentence of fine, we impose upon the accused the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months to run from the date on which he surrenders.

4. The accused will now be called upon to surrender and undergo the sentence now passed upon him.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial