BRIJ NANDAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, five in number, along with four others, were tried under Secs.147 and 452 and Section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate who tried the case passed an order convicting the applicants without specifying the sections of the Indian Penal Code under which he was convicting them and passed combined sentences upon them of six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50 each. This is illegal, and the judgment obviously does not comply with the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 367, Criminal P.C., which requires that the judgment shall specify the offence of which and the section of the Indian Penal Code or other law under which the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced.

(2.) The applicants went up in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge noted the error committed by the trial Court, but he confirmed the convictions of the applicants as well as the sentences, except in the case of the applicant Kanhaiya Lal whose sentence of imprisonment was reduced by him to one of three months.

(3.) It is argued on behalf of the applicants that the error on the part of the trial Court in not specifying the sections under which the applicants had been convicted and in not passing, separate sentences upon them for each offence, has in fact occasioned a failure of justice, and that the error cannot therefore be cured by Section 537, Criminal P.C., I accept the contention. By not specifying the different sections of the Indian Penal Code under which each applicant was convicted and by not passing a separate sentence for each offence the trial Court was unable to apply its mind to the case of each applicant separately and judging the extent of each applicant's guilt and determining what sentences should be passed upon them for each offence.