Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Ramanugrah Singh vs The King Emperor on 18 June, 1946
7. With regard to the first point urged by the learned counsel for the accused persons, the legal position is now well settled. I need only refer to the decision in -- 'Ramanugrah Singh v. Emperor', AIR 1946 PC 151 (A); that decision was followed by this Court in -- 'Emperor v. Ramkri-pal', AIR 1947 Pat 398 (B), -- 'The King v.'
Abdul Rahim vs King-Emperor on 26 February, 1946
11. I must, however, concede that the point urged by learned counsel for the accused persons is not entirely free from difficulty, and I most therefore, consider the case also from another point of view. Under Sub-section (3) of Section 307, Criminal P. C., the High Court may exercise any of the powers which it may exercise on an appeal. It is now settled by the decision in -- 'Abdul Rahim v. Emperor', AIR 1946 PC 82 (E), that where in admissible evidence has been admitted in a trial' by jury, the High Court on appeal may, after excluding such evidence, maintain a conviction, pro-vided the admissible evidence remaining is in: the opinion of the Court sufficient clearly to re tablish the guilt of the accused.
Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor on 19 January, 1939
The High Court' is not bound to order retrial in such cases, "The same view was also pronounced in -- 'Narayam Swami v. Emperor', AIR 1939 PC 47 (P), where a reference was made to Section 537, Criminal P. C. If I may say so with respect, the legal position tun been very succinctly explained by Lokur J. in --'Savlimiya Miyabhai v. Emperor', AIR 1944 Bom 338 (G). His Lordship observed:
Queen-Empress vs Sitanath Mandal on 16 July, 1895
In my opinion,! this contention is wholly without substance. There is no doubt that the offence under Section 452, Penal Code, is a minor offence within the meaning of Section 238, Criminal P. C., and the jury, if properly directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, could have convicted the accused persons of the offence under Section 452, Penal Code, on the charge framed and placed before them; therefore, it is open to this Court to convict the accused persons of the offence under Section 452, Penal Code. If authority be needed for this view, such authority will be found in the decision of -- 'Queen-Empress v. Sitanath', 22 Gal 1005 (H), where the accused persons were tried by a jury on charges under Sections 366 and 377, Penal Code; the Judge made a reference to the High Court under Section 307, Criminal P. C., and the High Court found the accused persons guilty of the offence under Section 365, Penal Code. As in that case, so also in the present case, no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons by the failure to frame a charge under Section 452, Penal Code. Baoierjee J. observed in that case:
The Empress vs Harai Mirdha And Umed Sardar on 28 November, 1877
The same view was expressed in two earlier decisions of the Calcutta High Court: -- 'The Empress v. Harai Mirdha', 3 Cal 1.89 (I) and -- 'The Government of Bengal v. Mahaadi', 5 Cal 871 (J).
1