Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

36. As the marginal note to Section 423 CrIPC itself clearly indicates, the Section deals with the powers of an appellate Court in disposing of an appeal. It does not aim at defining or delimiting the subject matter within the jurisdiction of the appellate Courts. The subject matter comprises all the matters and offences of which Cognizance was taken by the trial Court. If the trial Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences in question and if the appeal lies a properly constituted appellate Court is competent to deal with those offences, and it cannot be said that the appellate Court inherently lacked the jurisdiction vested in the trial Court. Only the powers of the appellate Court in exercising that jurisdiction are regulated by Section 423. Sub-section 1 of Section 423 begins by requiring the appellate Court to send for the record, if such record is not already before it, to peruse the record and to hear the parties. It may either dismiss the appeal or proceed to exercise any of the powers conferred by the subsequent provisions of the Section, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Some ;of the powers may be exercised only in appeals from orders of acquittal and some of the powers may be exercised only in appeals from convictions. These limitations as to the exercise of the powers do not intend to affect the jurisdiction of the appellate Court over the subject matter, i.e., over the matters and offences which were properly taken cognizance of by the trial Court. If Sanjeeva Row NayUdu, J., had gone into the evidence in support of the charge of murder, merely for' determining that imprisonment for life wail the proper sentence Under Section 326 X. P. C, no exception could have been taken to Judgment. (Vide Malak Kfian v. Emperor A.I.R. 1946 PC 16 at P. 19.) Thus there is no; basis for the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that there was an inherent lack of jurisdiction for the High Court in Cri. Appeal H/SM and Cr.i. R, C.; 62/58 to go into the charge of murder, because; it is not suggested that the trial Court placed jurisdiction Either to frame, and try that charge' or to pass an order of acquittal thereon