Detailed Notes On Lawyer In Chandigarh

The statement of the appellant before the Magistrate is admissible under section 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the very commencemeilt of the record of that statement, the Sessions Judge readout the appellant's statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before 195 the Committing Magistrate and enquired 'Whether it was correct. Shortly thereafter, he engaged the appellant's cart to take him and his goods to his village.

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following points in support of the appeal:- But that is not the position in this case as we read the judgments of the courts below. It was not necessary for Advocates (hop over to this web-site) the Sessions Judge to specifically repeat the same when the appellant admitted his statement before the Committing Magistrate as correct when read out to him. the best judge as to which of the two impugned Acts, or the Act of 1939 which they sought to amend, should, in its administrative convenience, be applied to a particular locality or what mode it should follow for the implemen- tation of its scheme and such zonal or territorial divisions it thought fib to make for that purpose according to different circumstances prevailing in different localities could not be held to be either discriminatory or violative of the equal protection of law.

From the concurrent orders of conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, he was granted special leave to appeal to this Court. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. -The appellant 'was sentenced to death for the murder of one Ram Dularey. All the four assessors,, who attended the trial, were of the opinion that the appellant was guilty. The King(1) are relevant. We have examined the statement of the appellant recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sessions Judge.

The High Court could not, at the revisional stage, it was further argued, insist upon a higher punishment being awarded by the trial court than 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. Apart from this, when the statement of Advocates (hop over to this web-site) the appellant to the Sessions Judge is read as a whole, it clearly shows that the appellant knew what the accusation against him was and he offered an explanation for the disappearance of Ram Dularey from his cart and for his possession of the deceased's goods. On his return journey, he got down from the train at Jarwal Road Station on the 2nd of July, 1954, at about 9-30 p.

He was tried along with two other persons, who were' acquitted, by the Sessions Judge of Bahraich. It was next sought to be contended that there was substantial prejudice to the appellant inasmuch as if 99 780 the conviction were under s. It is not essential that more than one person should be convicted of the offence of criminal conspiracy. This argument is sought to be enforced by the consideration that it must be presumed that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had been entrusted with the trial of the accused persons with the full knowledge that, on conviction, the accused persons could be punished with a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years.

, to which the 'appellant replied in the affirmative. It is enough if the court is in a position to find that two or more persons were actually concerned in the criminal conspiracy. He had with him articles consisting of a box, a balti, a gunny bag, jholas and other things. 488, he may have been entitled to claim compensation. The Magistrate pointedly asked the appellant as to whether he along with the other accused murdered Ram Dularey and had taken his property to which the appellant replied in the negative.

The High Court could, therefore, at the most, say that the trial judge should have inflicted the highest punishment, it had been empowered by the Code, to impose. Indeed, the most important of them are admitted by the appellant in his statement under section 342 Advocates - hop over to this web-site, of the Code of Criminal Procedure when examined in the Court of Sessions. He was also sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for having robbed the murdered man of his goods. It has been established by the evidence in the case that the deceased Ram Dularey, a shop-keeper of Jarwal, had gone to Lucknow to purchase goods for his shop.

There is no justification for supposing that there had been any prejudice caused to the appellant on account of improper or insufficient recording of his statement by the Sessions Judge under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court could exercise its powers only to correct any mistakes made by the learned trial judge. If the courts below had come to the distinct finding that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution was unreliable, then certainly no conviction could have been based Advocates (you could try these out) on such evidence and all the accused would have been equally entitled to acquittal.

The argument is that the High Court could enhance the sentence from 5 to 7 years and no more. The High Court of Allahabad affirmed the conviction and the sentence and this appeal is by special leave, 193 Certain facts have been proved beyond all doubt.