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

Calcutta High Court
Jatra Mohan Bysack And Ors. vs Akhil Chandra Bysack on 5 January, 1911
Equivalent citations: 9 Ind Cas 261
Bench: Holmwood, Sharf-Ud-Din


1. No one appears to show cause against this Rule.

2. From the explanation of the appellate Court and on the face of its judgment, it is clear that there has been no proper hearing of the appeal. The Magistrate says: “The full statement of facts and the finding were not given in the appellate Court’s judgment as they were set out in full in the lower Court’s judgment with which I do, not see any reason to disagree except as regards the amount of punishment.” But we would point out to the learned Magistrate that the first duty of a Court of appeal is to find whether the conviction had by the lower Court against each of the accused persons is sustainable. A general agreement with the lower Court cannot be sufficient to uphold the conviction of each particular individual; each of them is entitled to a finding on the facts that he did or did not take part in the alleged offence, and where there is no such finding, there must be a re-hearing of the appeal.

3. The case will be remanded to the District Magistrate in order that the appeal may be re-heard according to law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

103 queries in 0.156 seconds.