Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)Section 237 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 238 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 403 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Abla Isak on 21 January, 1931
In Emperor v. Abla Isak (1931) I.L.R. 55 Bom. 520 however, there was no such alternative charge actually framed, and the same is true of the present case.
Section 403 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Nirmal Kanta Roy on 1 April, 1914
The main part of the judgment in fact is taken up with reasons for distinguishing a Calcutta Case which had been cited before him, Emperor v. Nirmal Kanta Roy (1914) I.L.R. 41 Cal. 1072. That is admittedly a case in which there had originally been an alternative charge, and it was held that so long as the jury had not brought in a satisfactory verdict in regard to that charge, the ordering of a retrial was merely the equivalent of the continuation of the original trial on the original charge.
Queen-Empress vs Sitanath Mandal on 16 July, 1895
215 and Queen-Empress v. Sitanath Mandal (1895) I.L.R. 22 Cal. 1006. Those are clear cases in which the facts justify the application of Section 238. They do not deal with facts similar to those with which I have to deal to-day, and therefore are of very little guidance in the decision of this particular question. As I have already said, that decision seems to me to depend almost entirely upon an analysis of the facts in this case. On that analysis it seems to me quite clear that the language of Section 403(1) must be deemed to apply to the present case, however anomalous it may seem that the accused should be protected from further trial for an offence of which, according to the opinion of five out of nine jurymen, he was actually proved guilty.
1