Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.

Calcutta High Court
Anil Krista Das vs Badam Santra on 5 December, 1928
Equivalent citations: AIR 1929 Cal 175


1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 406/75, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Es. 35.

2. The two grounds upon which this Rule was issued are (1) that the proceedings are illegal as the Sub-Divisional Officer issued summons against the petitioner without examining the complainant under Section 200, Criminal P.C.; and (2) that the trial was bad involving as it did ofences committed on five distinct dates

3. As regards the first of these grounds it it true that the Court which issued summons against the petitioner did not examine the complainant Badam Santra before issuing such process, but this defect in our opinion amounts only to an irregularity which cannot be held to have vitiated the trial in the absence of any prejudice having been caused to the petitioner. We find also that the said complainant Badam Santra has been examined as a witness for the prosecution in the case itself. As regards the second ground the learned advocate appearing in support of the Rule is unable to support it in view of the provisions of Section 222(2), Criminal P.C. The two grounds upon which the Rule was issued therefore fail. We have been asked to consider the question of the sentence. But having given the matter our best consideration we are unable to hold that the sentence is in any way too severe. The Rule is accordingly discharged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

114 queries in 0.234 seconds.