Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Queen-Empress vs Pershad And Ors. on 17 January, 1885
8. I agree and desire to add a few words. The opening words of Section 413, Criminal P.C., "notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained" indicate that this section enacts what is in the nature of an exception to provisions relating to certain appeals contained in earlier sections of the Code. In my judgment, it therefore follows that in considering the kind of case which falls clearly within the language of Section 413, Criminal P.C., it would not be permissible to go back to the language of any of the earlier sections for guidance in the matter. As has been pointed out in the judgment just delivered by my learned brother, the case in Queen-Empress v. Pershad (1885) 7 All.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Baramaddi And Ors. vs Magorali on 26 November, 1931
7. It cannot be said that any right has been taken away from the accused. It is for them to show that they were invested with the right of appeal by virtue of some provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or by any other law. In my opinion, they have not been able to show that they have any such right. On the contrary, Section 413, Criminal P.C., expressly negatives the existence of such right. This Section and the two decisions last adverted to were apparently not brought to the notice of the learned Judge who decided the case in Baramaddi v. Magorali . With very great respect to the learned Judge who decided that case, I have to dissent from that decision in view of what I consider to be the explicit provision in Section 413, Criminal P.C., barring any appeal in the circumstances which have occurred. I hold therefore that the accused have no right of appeal. This reference must be rejected. The learned advocate on behalf of the accused stated that we should direct the learned Sessions Judge to deal with the motion before him on the merits. I think this is a reasonable request and I direct that the learned Sessions Judge do deal with the motion before him on the merits and pass orders thereon according to law.
Bakshi Ram And Ors. vs Emperor on 1 October, 1937
366 and Bakshi Ram v. Emperor . On behalf of the Crown and the complainant it was argued that a trial does not come to an end until judgment is delivered and it was urged that Section 407 had no application. The question as to when a trial may properly be said to terminate is one of some nicety but I do not think that I need enter upon a discussion regarding this question in view of the particular facts of this case and in view of the clear words of Section 413, Criminal P.C. That Section is as follows:
Section 404 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 407 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Maganlal Jhaverchand on 19 January, 1927
In support of this view, he has placed before us the case relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to which I have already referred and also to the cases of Emperor V. Maganlal Jhaverchand (1927) 14 A.I.R. Bom.
1