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

Allahabad High Court
Shanker Singh And Ors. vs Emperor on 11 April, 1929
Equivalent citations: AIR 1929 All 587, 117 Ind Cas 346
Author: Dalal


Dalal, J.

1. In this case it has been definitely held by both the Subordinate Courts that Moti was not only beaten but was robbed of a sum of Rs. 150. It is argued here that this Court could revise the finding of fact of the subordinate Courts and hold that Moti was only beaten and that there was no robbery. Reference was made to the wording of Section 435, Criminal P.C., that this Court may send for a record to satisfy itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed. Legality and propriety would both include questions of law as to whether a finding, sentence or order was legal or proper having regard to the evidence. Then there is the word “correctness.” That does not mean that this Court may inquire whether the finding was acceptable to it on a balance of the evidence recorded in the trial Court. The correctness of the finding, sentence or order also implies a legal defence such as the finding being based on an entire want of evidence, or being incorrect in the sense that the witnesses may have said, for instance, that no theft was committed and the Court may have recorded a finding that theft was committed. The power of this Court in appeal is totally distinct from the power of this Court which can be exercised in revision. Where there is evidence of whatsoever character on which a particular finding of fact may be based this Court is precluded under the terms of Section 435, Criminal P.C., from interfering with that finding. In the present case there is evidence that Moti was not only beaten but was robbed also, and on that evidence the subordinate Courts could correctly arrive at a finding that a dacoit was committed. Under the circumstances the finding was correct, and no question can arise here on that point in revision. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is justified. It is true that the fine of Rs. 100 on every one of the applicants is excessive. I reduce the fine in every case to Rs. 20 and the imprisonment in default to one month’s rigorous imprisonment; otherwise the application is dismissed. The balance of the fine, if recovered, shall be refunded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.183 seconds.