Decided on November 25,1901

KRISHNAYYA Respondents


- (1.) The Sessions Judge will be informed that there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires a Court, when dismissing an appeal summarily under Section 421 of that Code to write a judgment in conformity with the provisions of Section 367. This has been so decided by all the High Courts, by this Court in Proceedings of the Madras High Court, dated 18 April 1883 Weir's Crl. Rul. p. 1009, and by the other High Courts in the cases of Bash Behari Das V/s. Balgopal Singh I.L.R. 21 Calc. 92, Queen-Empress V/s. Warubai I.L.R. 20 Bom. 540 and Queen-Empress V/s. Nannhu I.L.R. 17 All. 241.
(2.) In the last-mentioned case the Full Bench decided that it was advisable for the Court to state its reasons in view of the possibility of a petition for revision.
(3.) There is nothing in Rule No. 7 of the rules printed at pages 167 to 175, Criminal Rules of Practice, 1896, in conflict with the above decisions. The meaning of that rule is that, in all cases other than those dealt with under Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code, the reasons for the decision should be given. The rule as originally passed required such reasons only in oases where the judgment appealed against was modified or reversed, but it was pointed out that this was opposed to Section 367 of the Code and the rule was then amended in its present form.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.