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.

Suknandan Singh Vs. Emperor

Suknandan Singh vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 28, 1912
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/881254

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
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 35 and 411 - Sentences to run concurrently--Sentence of six months' imprisonment on each of two counts by Presidency Magistrate--Right of appeal--Aggregate sentence. -

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suknandan Singh

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
17Ind.Cas.531

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 35 and 411 - sentences to run concurrently--sentence of six months' imprisonment on each of two counts by presidency magistrate--right of appeal--aggregate sentence. - 1. two sentences, each of six months' imprisonment, passed simultaneously under section 35 of the criminal procedure code of 1898 and directed to run concurrently cannot, in our opinion, be held to be, in the aggregate, a single sentence of one year's imprisonment. the word 'aggregate' in sub-section (3) of the section connotes the combined effect of the different sentences passed and, if two concurrent sentences could properly be said to be aggregated in the sense of being merged together, the result of the so-called aggregation would, we think, be a single sentence of six months' imprisonment. the intention which is to be gathered from, for example, section 411 of the code, is that a person who is to suffer by being imprisoned for more than a certain period shall have the privilege of an appeal. if he is, in fact, to be imprisoned for a shorter period, whether under one or two sentences, we do not understand how the privilege can, or why it should, be extended to him.2. this appeal is, therefore, incompetent and dismissed accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. Two sentences, each of six months' imprisonment, passed simultaneously under Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and directed to run concurrently cannot, in our opinion, be held to be, in the aggregate, a single sentence of one year's imprisonment. The word 'aggregate' in Sub-section (3) of the section connotes the combined effect of the different sentences passed and, if two concurrent sentences could properly be said to be aggregated in the sense of being merged together, the result of the so-called aggregation would, we think, be a single sentence of six months' imprisonment. The intention which is to be gathered from, for example, Section 411 of the Code, is that a person who is to suffer by being imprisoned for more than a certain period shall have the privilege of an appeal. If he is, in fact, to be imprisoned for a shorter period, whether under one or two sentences, we do not understand how the privilege can, or why it should, be extended to him.

2. This appeal is, therefore, incompetent and dismissed accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial