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.

Dehri Sonar Vs. Emperor

Dehri Sonar vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 04, 1923
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/886727

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 V of 1898), Section 310, applicability of - Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 75--Previous conviction, evidence of, when to be given. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dehri Sonar

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1923Cal707,77Ind.Cas.921

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 310, applicability of - penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 75--previous conviction, evidence of, when to be given. - 1. this rule was granted only on the 6th ground set out in the petition which is in the following terms, 'that the trial has been vitiated by the admission of the evidence of previous conviction prior to this accused entering upon his defence.'2. appears that on the 2rst june the accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under sections 457 and 380 of the penal code, and that on the 18th july witnesses were examined to prove previous conviction of the accused, and a charge was framed that he we liable to enhanced punishment, tinder the provisions of section 75 of the penal code, in consequence of previous conviction. we are unable to see that there hap been illegality r irregularity in the magistrate's procedure. section 310 of the criminal procedure code lays down a special form of trial of the issue of liability to enhanced punishment in consequence of previous conviction. but this sect on is expressly made applicable to trials before the court of session only, and does not apply to trials before magistrates. in certain reported cases it has been held that the accused has been prejudiced by too early an admission of evidence as to previous conviction, but in the present case it has not been shown to us that there could have been any prejudice. we, therefore, hold that the ground on which this rule was issued fails, and we accordingly discharge this rule.3. the petitioner must surrender to his bail, and undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence.

Full Judgment

1. This Rule was granted Only on the 6th ground set out in the petition which is in the following terms, 'that the trial has been vitiated by the admission of the evidence of previous conviction prior to this accused entering upon his defence.'

2. appears that on the 2rst June the accused was charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Penal Code, and that on the 18th July witnesses were examined to prove previous conviction of the accused, and a charge was framed that he we liable to enhanced punishment, tinder the provisions of Section 75 of the Penal Code, in consequence of previous conviction. We are unable to see that there hap been illegality r irregularity in the Magistrate's procedure. Section 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down a special form of trial of the issue of liability to enhanced punishment in consequence of previous conviction. But this sect on is expressly made applicable to trials before the Court of Session only, and does not apply to trials before Magistrates. In certain reported cases it has been held that the accused has been prejudiced by too early an admission of evidence as to previous conviction, but in the present case it has not been shown to us that there could have been any prejudice. We, therefore, hold that the ground on which this Rule was issued fails, and we accordingly discharge this Rule.

3. The petitioner must surrender to his bail, and undergo the unexpired portion of his sentence.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial