AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
11 paragraphs · 238 wordsThe Sessions Judge will be informed that there is nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which requires a Court, when dismissing an appeal
summarily u/s 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 18th April 1883 Weir''s Crl. Rul. p. 1009, and by the other High Courts in
the cases of Bash Behari Das v. Balgopal Singh ILR 21 Calc. 92 Queen-Empress v. Warubai ILR 20 Bom. 540 and Queen-Empress v. Nannhu
ILR 17 All. 241.
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.
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 u/s 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.