{"id":132833,"date":"1957-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957"},"modified":"2018-05-12T05:46:14","modified_gmt":"2018-05-12T00:16:14","slug":"sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957","title":{"rendered":"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 194, \t\t 1958 SCR 962<\/div>\n
Author: S J Imam<\/div>\n
Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Imam, Syed Jaffer, Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSASHI MOHAN DEBNATH AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/11\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nBENCH:\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\n\nCITATION:\n 1958 AIR  194\t\t  1958 SCR  962\n\n\nACT:\n       Sessions Trial-Reference-Judge agreeing with jury's  verdict\n       of  non-guilty  on some of the charges but  in  disagreement\n       with  the  verdict of guilty in respect\tof  others-If  must\n       refer  the  whole  case\tagainst\t the  accused-Recording\t of\n       judgment of acquittal in agreement with the jury's  verdict-\n       Legality-High Court, if can act on a Partial  reference-Code\n       of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), ss. 307, 306.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n       Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read\n       together\t clearly  indicate that where  the  Sessions  judge\n       disagrees with the verdict of the jury and is of the opinion\n       that the case should be submitted to the High Court, he must\n       submit the whole case against the accused, not a part of it.\n       If  the jury returns a verdict of guilty in respect of  some\n       charges and notguilty in\n       961\n       respect of others he cannot record his judgment of acquittal\n       in respect of the latter charges in agreement with the  jury\n       in contravention of the mandatory provision Of s. 307(2)\t of\n       the Code.  Such recording must have the effect of preventing\n       the High Court from considering the entire evidence  against\n       the accused and exercising its jurisdiction under S. 307(3).\n       Hazari  Lal's case, (1932) 1. L. R.\/\/Pat. 395  and  Ramjanam\n       Tewari, (1935) I. L. R Pat. 7I7, approved.\n       Emperor\tv.  jagmohan, 1. L. R. (1947)  Allahabad  240,\tand\n       Emperor v. Muktar, (1943) 48 C.W.N. 547, disapproved.\n       The  Emperor v. Bishnu Chandra Das, (1933) 37  C.W.N.  1180,\n       King Emperor v. Ananda Charan Ray, (1916) 21 C.W.N. 435, and\n       Emperor v. Nawal Behari, (1930) I.L.R All. 881, considered.\n       Consequently, in a case where eight persons were put up\tfor\n       trial  in  the Court of Session charged under ss.   I47\tand\n       304\/I49\tOf  the\t Indian Penal Code and four  of\t them  were\n       further\tcharged under s. 201 of the Indian Penal  Code\tand\n       the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty under S.\n       304\/I49\tand  guilty  under ss. 147 and 201  and\t the  Judge\n       accepting the former recorded a judgment of acquittal in the\n       case  of\t each  accused\tbut  disagreeing  with\tthe  latter\n       referred\t the  matter to the High Court, the  reference\twas\n       incompetent  and the High Court was in error in acting  upon\n       it and its judgment must be set aside.\n       Held further, that although the proper order in such a  case\n       should be to remit the case to the trial court for  disposal\n       according  to  law, in view of the long lapse  of  time\tand\n       peculiar\t circumstances of this case the reference  must\t be\n       rejected.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 114\t of
\n       1954.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal  from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1954,\t of
\n       the  Calcutta High Court in Reference No. 6 of  1954,  under
\n       Section\t307  of\t the Criminal Procedure Code  made  by\tthe
\n       Additional  Sessions  Judge, 24 Parganas at Alipore  on\tthe
\n       June 7, 1954, in Sessions Trial No. 2 of May, 1954.
\n       S.   C. Isaacs, and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
\n       A.  C.  Mitra,  D.  N. Mukherjee and P.\tK.  Bose,  for\tthe
\n       respondent.\n<\/p>\n
       1957.  November 19.  The following Judgment of the Court was
\n       delivered by
\n       IMAM  J.-In  this appeal by special  leave  the\tsubstantial
\n       question for consideration is whether the reference made\t to
\n       the Calcutta High Court by the
\n       962<\/span>
\n       Additional Sessions Judge of Alipur under s. 307 of the Code
\n       of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the  Code)
\n       was competent and, if not, whether the High Court acted with
\n       jurisdiction in convicting or acquitting any of the  accused
\n       who were tried by the Additional sessions Judge and a jury.
\n       There  were eight accused on trial in the Court\tof  Session
\n       all  of whom were charged under ss. 147 and 304\/149  of\tthe
\n       Indian  Penal  Code.  Four of them, namely, accused  No.\t 1,
\n       Sashi  Mohan  Debnath,  accused\tNo.  2,\t Rajendra  Debnath,
\n       accused\tNo. 3, Manindra Debnath and accused No.\t 6,  Rohini
\n       Kumar  Debnath  were further charged under  s.  201,  Indian
\n       Penal Code.  The trial Judge delivered a charge to the  jury
\n       which  was favourable to the accused.  The jury\treturned  a
\n       unanimous  verdict  of not guilty under s.  304\/149  of\tthe
\n       Indian  Penal Code, which the learned Judge  accepted.\tHe,
\n       accordingly,  acquitted\tall the accused charged\t with  this
\n       offence.\t  The jury, however, with respect to charges  under
\n       ss.  147\t and  201  of the  Indian  Penal  Code\treturned  a
\n       unanimous verdict of guilty against the accused charged with
\n       these offences.\tThe trial Judge disagreed with this verdict
\n       and  made a reference under s. 307 of the Code to  the  High
\n       Court, being of the opinion that the accused were not guilty
\n       of these offences.  The High Court accepted the reference in
\n       part  and  in agreement with the jury’s\tverdict\t of  guilty
\n       under ss. 147 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code convicted the
\n       accused\tSashi  Mohan Debnath, Rajendra\tDebnath,  Sudbanshu
\n       Kumar Debnath, Dinesh Chandra Debnath and Bonomali Das under
\n       s.  147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of  them
\n       to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and the  accused
\n       Sashi Mohan Debnath and Rajendra Debnath under s. 201 of the
\n       Indian  Penal  Code and sentenced each of  them\tto  undergo
\n       rigorous\t imprisonment for three years.\tThe sentences  with
\n       respect\tto  the accused Sashi Mohan  Debnath  and  Rajendra
\n       Debnath\twere ordered to run concurrently.  The\tHigh  Court
\n       did  not accept the verdict of the jury with respect to\tthe
\n       accused\tManindra Debnath and Gouranga Debnath under s.\t147
\n       of the Indian Penal
\n\t\t\t\t   963<\/span>
\n       Code  and under s. 201 against Manindra Debnath\tand  Rohini
\n       Kumar Debnath and acquitted them.\n<\/p>\n
       The  present appeal is by the accused Sashi Mohan,  Debnath,
\n       Rajendra Debnath, Sudhanshu Kumar Debnath and Bonomali  Das.
\n       When  the appeal came on for hearing on September 12,  1956,
\n       it  was\tfound necessary by this Court to  have\tthe  appeal
\n       heard  in  the  presence\t of the\t accused  No.  3,  Manindra
\n       Debnath, accused No. 6, Rohini Kumar Debnath and accused No.
\n       8,  Gouranga Debnath.  The reason for issuing  notices  upon
\n       them  has  been fully stated in the order passed\t that  day.
\n       Accordingly,  notices were issued to these accused and  they
\n       were served upon Manindra Debnath and Gouranga Debnath.\t So
\n       far  as Rohini Kumar Debnath was concerned, it was  reported
\n       that  he could not be traced and no one could say  where\t he
\n       had  gone  after\t selling all his  properties  and  that\t no
\n       relative of his could be found.\tNone of these three accused
\n       have entered appearances in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
       It  is unnecessary to refer either to the  facts\t concerning
\n       the  occurrence\tor  the case of\t the  prosecution  and\tthe
\n       defence,\t as the only question for decision before us  is  a
\n       question of law.\t Indeed, no submissions were made either on
\n       behalf  of the appellants or on behalf of the respondent\t on
\n       the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
       In  order to determine whether the reference made  under\t s.
\n       307  of the Code by the Additional Sessions Judge of  Alipur
\n       was competent, it is necessary to examine the provisions\t of
\n       that section and consider some of the decisions of the  High
\n       Courts in India in this connection.  But before we do  this,
\n       some  general considerations concerning trials by  jury\tand
\n       interference  with  their verdict by the High Court  may\t be
\n       stated.\t The scheme of the Code clearly suggests that at  a
\n       trial in the Court of Sessions the trial can be either  with
\n       the aid of assessors or by a jury depending upon whether the
\n       offence for which the accused was,, being tried was  triable
\n       with  the  aid  of assessors or by a jury.   The\t Code  even
\n       contemplates  a\ttrial of the accused for  certain  offences
\n       which  were  triable  with the aid of  assessors\t and  other
\n       offences which were triable
\n       964<\/span>
\n       by a jury at the same trial, in which case the jurors  acted
\n       as  assessors for the offences which were triable  with\tthe
\n       aid  of assessors.  Although a trial by a jury was  provided
\n       for  by the Code, it did not compel the judge to accept\tthe
\n       verdict.\t  It permitted him to disagree with it but did\tnot
\n       permit  him to record a judgment unlike the case of a  trial
\n       with  the  aid of assessors where the Judge  could  disagree
\n       with  their opinion and record a judgment.  The\tpurpose\t of
\n       the  Code was to regard the jury’s verdict as of\t sufficient
\n       importance to prevent the Judge in the Court of Session from
\n       recording a judgment if the Judge disagreed with it.  It was
\n       considered  that\t if  the  verdict of the  jury\twas  to\t be
\n       displaced,  it  must be displaced, if at all,  by  the  High
\n       Court which must give due weight to the opinion of the  jury
\n       and the Judge and after considering the entire evidence.\t In
\n       other words, the High Court could do what the jury did after
\n       giving\tdue  weight  to\t the  opinion  of  the\tJudge\tand
\n       considering  the\t entire\t evidence.   Ordinarily,  a  jury’s
\n       verdict on questions of fact would not easily be disregarded
\n       by the High Court because the basic principle of a trial\t by
\n       jury  is that the jury are masters of fact.  The verdict\t of
\n       the  jury  would not be reversed by the\tHigh  Court  merely
\n       because\tit  disagreed with it.\tIf the\tHigh  Court,  after
\n       considering the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that
\n       no reasonable body of men could have reached the\t conclusion
\n       arrived\tat  by\tthe  jury, then the  High  Court  would\t be
\n       entitled to disregard the verdict.\n<\/p>\n
       At the time that the reference was made under s.\t 307 by the
\n       Additional Sessions Judge, the provisions of s. 307 were\t in
\n       the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
       ” 307. (1) If in any such case the Judge disagrees ,with the
\n       verdict\tof the jurors, or of a majority of the\tjurors,\t on
\n       all or any of the charges on which (any accused person)\thas
\n       been  tried,  and  is  clearly of the  opinion  that  it\t is
\n       necessary  for  the ends of justice to submit the  case\t(in
\n       respect of such accused person) to the High Court, he  shall
\n       submit  the case accordingly, recording the grounds  of\this
\n       opinion, and, when the verdict is one of acquittal,  stating
\n       the  offence which he considers to have been committed  (and
\n       in such
\n\t\t\t\t   965<\/span>
\n       case, if the accused is further charged under the provisions
\n       of  section 310, shall proceed to try him on such charge\t as
\n       if  such verdict had been one of conviction).
\n\t(2) Whenever  the Judge submits a case under this  section,
\n       he  shall not record judgment of acquittal or of\t conviction
\n       on  any\tof  the charges on which (such\taccused)  has  been
\n       tried, but he may either remand (such accused) to custody or
\n       admit him to bail.\n<\/p>\n
       (3)In dealing with the case so submitted the High Court\tmay
\n       exercise\t any  of  the powers which it may  exercise  on\t an
\n       appeal, and subject thereto it shall., after considering the
\n       entire evidence and after giving due weight to the  opinions
\n       of the Sessions Judge and the jury, acquit or convict  (such
\n       accused)\t of  any  offence  of which  the  jury\tcould  have
\n       convicted  him upon the charge framed and placed before\tit;
\n       and,  if\t it convicts him, may pass such sentence  as  might
\n       have been passed by the Court of Sessions “.
\n       In construing s. 307 we must consider first the words “if in
\n       any  such  case” at the very commencement  of  the  section.
\n       These words refer to the case mentioned in s. 306(1).   That
\n       case is the case which is tried before the Court of  Session
\n       by  a jury and therefore obviously the whole case and not  a
\n       part  of it.  When the jury have given their verdict in\tthe
\n       case, then the Judge has to consider whether he agrees  with
\n       it and, if he does, then he must give judgment  accordingly.
\n       If, however, he disagrees and is clearly of the opinion that
\n       it was necessary for the ends of justice to submit the  case
\n       to  the High Court he must submit the case accordingly.\t In
\n       our  opinion, the case to be submitted to the High Court\t is
\n       the  whole  case against the accused and not a part  of\tit.
\n       This  appears  to  us  to  be  clearly  the  effect  of\tthe
\n       provisions  of ss. 306 and 307 when read together.   Section
\n       307 (2) specifically prohibits the Judge, when be  considers
\n       it  necessary to submit the case by way of reference to\tthe
\n       High  Court, from recording any judgment of acquittal or\t of
\n       conviction  on any of the charges on which the  accused\thad
\n       been tried.  This prohibition is mandatory and a Judge,\twho
\n       records\ta judgment of acquittal or of conviction on  an\t of
\n       the charges on which the accused had been
\n       966<\/span>
\n       tried,  contravenes  the\t provisions of s.  307(2)  and\tthe
\n       judgment\t so  recorded  is illegal.  We\tcannot\taccept\tthe
\n       submission  of the learned Counsel for the  appellants  that
\n       the  action of the Judge in recording a judgment is  a  mere
\n       irregularity.  Section 307(3) provides for the powers  which
\n       the  High  Court may exercise in dealing with  the  case\t so
\n       submitted  and it enjoins that although the High\t Court\tmay
\n       exercise any of the powers conferred on it, when hearing\t an
\n       appeal,\tit  should consider the entire evidence\t and  after
\n       giving  due weight to the opinion of the Sessions Judge\tand
\n       the  jury,  either  convict or acquit  the  accused  of\tany
\n       offence\tfor which he was tried, and if it convicted him\t of
\n       an  offence  for which the jury should have  convicted  him,
\n       pass such sentence as might have been passed by the Court of
\n       Session.\t  But  before  the High Court  could  exercise\tthe
\n       powers conferred on it under s. 307(3) it was necessary that
\n       the  reference  under s. 307 should have been  according\t to
\n       law.  This was, in our opinion, a condition precedent to the
\n       exercise\t of such power by the High Court.  The words  “with
\n       the case so submitted” make it quite clear that a  reference
\n       under  s.  307(1)  must be of the  whole\t case  against\tthe
\n       accused and not a part of it.  In order that the High  Court
\n       may  be in a position to properly exercise its powers  under
\n       s.  307(3), it was necessary for it to consider\tthe  entire
\n       evidence in the case, which obviously it could not do if the
\n       trial judge had already recorded a judgment.  By recording a
\n       judgment\t the  trial  Judge prevents  the  High\tCourt  from
\n       properly\t exercising  its  powers under\ts.  307(3)  as\tthe
\n       reference  made\tthereafter is not of the entire\t case  with
\n       respect\tto  the accused.  Indeed, in the present  case\tthe
\n       Judge having accepted the jury’s verdict and having recorded
\n       a judgment of acquittal under s. 304\/149, Indian Penal Code,
\n       in the case of each accused, took it out of the hands of the
\n       High  Court to deal with the case of each accused  with\tre-
\n       ference to the other charges framed against him.
\n       The  effect of the amendments to s. 307 of the Code made\t in
\n       1923  and 1955 lend further support to the view that  it\t is
\n       the whole case which must be referred and not a part of\tit,
\n       The provisions of s. 307(1) before
\n\t\t\t\t   967<\/span>
\n       the  amendment  of  1923 were so expressed  as  to  make\t it
\n       possible to say that it was necessary for the trial Judge to
\n       refer  the  whole case concerning every accused on  all\tthe
\n       charges\tframed against them irrespective of the\t fact  that
\n       the  Judge was in agreement with the jury with respect to  a
\n       particular  accused on all the charges framed  against  him.
\n       The  amendment  of 1923 introduced the words ”  any  accused
\n       person  ”  in place of the words ” the accused ”\t and  ”\t in
\n       respect\tof such accused person ” in a. 307(1).\tThe  amend-
\n       ment,  accordingly, enabled the Judge to accept the  verdict
\n       of  the jury on all the charges framed against  any  accused
\n       person and to record a judgment with reference to him  while
\n       referring  the  case of another accused to  the\tHigh  Court
\n       where  he disagreed with the verdict on any of  the  charges
\n       framed  against him.  The amendment was made to\tremove\tthe
\n       necessity of referring the whole case, including the case of
\n       an  accused concerning whom the Judge was in agreement  with
\n       the  verdict  on all the charges framed\tagainst\t him.\tThe
\n       amendment   would  have\tbeen  unnecessary  if\ts.   307(1)
\n       contemplated a reference of only a part of the case and\tnot
\n       the whole of it.\n<\/p>\n
       The amendment of 1955 completely recast s. 282 of the  Code.
\n       This  amendment\tprovided for the continuance of\t the  trial
\n       with  the  reduced number of jurors,  in\t the  circumstances
\n       mentioned in the section, instead of the trial re-commencing
\n       with  a newly selected jury.  Consequently, in s.  307  sub-
\n       section\t(1)A was introduced which directed that\t where\tthe
\n       jurors were equally divided on all or any of the charges\t on
\n       which  any  accused person had been tried,  the\tJudge  must
\n       submit the case in respect of such accused to the High Court
\n       recording  his  opinion on such charge or  charges  and\tthe
\n       grounds\tof  his opinion.  This direction, in  our  opinion,
\n       makes  it clear that the whole case had to be  submitted\t to
\n       the High Court.\tIn our opinion, the amendments of 1923\tand
\n       1955  to\t s.  307 clearly indicate  that\t Parliament  itself
\n       thought\tthat  it was the whole case and not a  part  of\t it
\n       which  was  to be submitted to the High Court.\tIndeed,\t as
\n       already stated, s. 307, even before its amend-\n<\/p>\n
       123<\/span>
\n       968<\/span><\/p>\n
       ment  in\t 1955, when properly construed, leads to  no  other
\n       reasonable conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
       It is now necessary to consider the cases decided by some of
\n       the High Courts in India in this connection.  The Patna High
\n       Court  in Hazari Lal’-s case (1) expressed the opinion  that
\n       having  regard to the provisions of s. 307 a reference  made
\n       thereunder must be of the whole case against the accused and
\n       not a part of it.  If only a part of it is referred then the
\n       reference made under s. 307 is incompetent.  That High Court
\n       reaffirmed  the view taken in Hazari Lal’s case in the  case
\n       of Ramjanam Tewari(2).  This was the view also taken by\tthe
\n       three  Judges of the Calcutta High Court in the case of\tThe
\n       Emperor\tv. Bishnu Chandra Das(3), two of whom, however,\t in
\n       rejecting  the  reference  directed  that  the  accused\t be
\n       acquitted.   The third Judge, Mr. Justice  McNair,  however,
\n       confined himself to the observation that the Sessions  Judge
\n       had disabled himself from making a valid reference under\t s.
\n       307 of the Code by accepting the verdict of the jury against
\n       the  accused  on some of the charges.  In our  opinion,\tthe
\n       view  taken  by\tthe Patna High Court  was  correct  and\t in
\n       accordance with the provisions of s. 307.\n<\/p>\n
       It was, however, submitted on behalf of the appellants  that
\n       in view of certain decisions of the Calcutta High Court\tand
\n       the Allahabad High Court, when a reference had in fact  been
\n       made,  it  was open to the High Court to deal  with  it\tand
\n       record  a judgment.  Reference was made to the case of  King
\n       Emperor\tv. Ananda Charan Ray (4).  It is true that in  this
\n       case  the learned Judges did consider the evidence in  order
\n       to ascertain whether the verdict of the jury was one which a
\n       body  of reasonable men could have arrived at.  The  learned
\n       Judges, however, observed before considering the evidence in
\n       the  case, ” If the learned Officiating Additional  Sessions
\n       Judge  considered that the interests of justice\trequired  a
\n       reference  to  this Court, I should say that he\twould  have
\n       been  better  advised  if he had\t referred  the\twhole  case
\n       leaving\tit  to\tthis Court to consider\tthe  whole  of\tthe
\n       evidence that
\n       (1)  (1932) I.L.R. Pat. 395.\n<\/p>\n
       (2)  (1935) I.L.R. Pat. 717.\n<\/p>\n
       (3)  (1933) 37 C. W. N. 1180.\n<\/p>\n
       (4)  (1916) 21 C.W.N. 435, 437.\n<\/p>\n
       969<\/span><\/p>\n
       was  placed  before  the\t jury.\tAs it  is,  this  Court\t is
\n       precluded   from\t considering  whether  the   accused   mis-
\n       appropriated  or had a hand in misappropriating any  portion
\n       of  these sums of Rs. 200 and Rs. 458.” After  referring\t to
\n       the  evidence,  the learned Judges expressed  the  following
\n       opinion:\t ”  The real truth of the matter is  that,  if\tthe
\n       learned Judge considered that this was a case that ought\t to
\n       be referred under s. 307, Cr.  P. C., he never ought to have
\n       sent up the case in this way by tying the hands of the Crown
\n       or  of  the Court or even the defence by agreeing  with\tthe
\n       verdict\tof the jury on the charges framed under\t sees.\t406
\n       and  477A  of  the  Indian penal Code.  As  it  is,  he\thad
\n       precluded  the Court from questioning or going  behind  that
\n       verdict and thus from considering the large body of evidence
\n       that was placed before the jury.\t In the result, we find\t it
\n       impossible in this case to accept the reference made by\tthe
\n       learned Officiating Additional Sessions Judge and we  think,
\n       having  regard  to  the\tfact  that  the\t accused  has  been
\n       acquitted  on the charges framed under secs. 406\t and  477A,
\n       Indian  Penal  Code, we ought to accept the verdict  of\tnot
\n       guilty  on the charges framed under sec. 467 read with  see.
\n       471  and sec. 474 1. P. C., and direct that the\taccused\t be
\n       acquitted.” This decision, in substance, takes the same view
\n       as  that expressed by the Patna High Court in the  cases\t of
\n       Hazari  Lal and Ramjanam Tewari.\t In the case of Emperor\t v.
\n       Nawal  Behari(1), the learned Judges of the  Allahabad  High
\n       Court held that when a Sessions Judge refers a case under s.
\n       307  of the Code, he must refer the whole case  against\tthe
\n       particular  accused  and not merely those charges  on  which
\n       there  happens  to be a finding by the jury with\t which\tlie
\n       disagrees.   This view is substantially in keeping with\tthe
\n       view  taken by the Patna High Court in the  cases  mentioned
\n       above.  It is true that the learned Judges them proceeded to
\n       consider\t the  evidence\tand set aside  the  conviction\tand
\n       sentence\t under\ts.  193 passed by the  Sessions\t Judge\tand
\n       substituted  in\tits place a conviction by  the\tHigh  Court
\n       under s. 193.  In our opinion, if the reference under s. 307
\n       of the Code had to be of
\n       (I)(1930) I.L.R. All. 881.\n<\/p>\n
       970<\/span><\/p>\n
       the  whole  case against the accused and\t not  merely  those
\n       charges\ton which the trial Judge disagreed with\t the  jury,
\n       then the reference was incompetent and the High Court  could
\n       not proceed to exercise any of the powers conferred upon\t it
\n       under  s.  307(3),  because  the\t very  foundation  for\tthe
\n       exercise\t of  that power was lacking,  the  reference  being
\n       incompetent.   In the case of Emperor v. Jagmohan(1),  while
\n       the learned Judges held that the reference to the High Court
\n       only  of\t a part of the case was irregular, the\tHigh  Court
\n       could consider not Only the part of the case referred to it,
\n       but  the\t whole case.  We are unable to\taccept\tthis  view.
\n       Whatever\t support this decision may give to  the\t submission
\n       made  by\t the  learned Counsel for  the\tappellant,  we\tare
\n       clearly\tof the opinion that the decision of  the  Allahabad
\n       High Court in this case was erroneous in law.  In Emperor v.
\n       Muktar(2)  thelearned  Judges were of the opinion  that\tthe
\n       reference  was not in order when the trial Judge recorded  a
\n       finding on some charges in respect of the very accused whose
\n       cases so far as other charges were concerned were  referred,
\n       but  the defect was not necessarily fatal to  the  reference
\n       and  the\t High Court might entertain the\t same.\t This  view
\n       cannot  be sustained, having regard to the provisions of\t s.\n<\/p>\n
       307.
\n       In our opinion, a reference made in the circumstances of the
\n       present case, was incompetent and the High Court should have
\n       rejected\t it  and not proceeded to record  any  judgment\t of
\n       acquittal or conviction.\n<\/p>\n
       We, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of
\n       the  High Court and hold that the reference under s. 307\t to
\n       the High Court was incompetent.\n<\/p>\n
       A question has arisen as to what consequential order  should
\n       be passed by this Court as the result of our conclusion that
\n       the reference under s. 307 to the High Court was incompetent
\n       and  the\t appeal\t succeeding.  The High\tCourt  should  have
\n       rejected the reference as incompetent and remitted the  case
\n       to  the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal according\t to
\n       law.\n<\/p>\n
       (1)  I.L.R. (1947) All. 240.\n<\/p>\n
       (2)  (1943) 48 C.W.N. 547.\n<\/p>\n
       971<\/span><\/p>\n
       We  emphasise  the  absolute need  for  making  a  competent
\n       reference  under\t s.  307 of the Code  and  the\tcase  being
\n       remitted\t to  the  Court making the  reference  as  soon\t as
\n       possible\t if  an incompetent reference is made in  order\t to
\n       avoid  legal  complications, unnecessary waste of  time\tand
\n       money  and  harassment  to the accused.\tIn  this  case\tthe
\n       letter  of  reference is dated June 7, 1954, that  is,  more
\n       than three years ago.  The occurrence took place on  October
\n       21,  1953.  After such lapse of time we will not order  that
\n       the case be returned to the Court of the Additional Sessions
\n       Judge of Alipur for disposal according to law,  particularly
\n       as we are informed that the Judge who made the reference\t to
\n       the  High Court has retired from service and it is  doubtful
\n       whether,\t in  law, his successor can at all  deal  with\tthe
\n       case.   In  the\tcircumstances  of  this\t particular   case,
\n       therefore,  the\tonly  order  which  we\tpass  is  that\tthe
\n       reference being incompetent is rejected.
\n\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 194, 1958 SCR 962 Author: S J Imam Bench: Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P., Imam, Syed Jaffer, Kapur, J.L., Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: SASHI MOHAN DEBNATH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132833","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1957-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-12T00:16:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-12T00:16:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957\"},\"wordCount\":3742,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957\",\"name\":\"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-12T00:16:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-12T00:16:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957","datePublished":"1957-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-12T00:16:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957"},"wordCount":3742,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957","name":"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-12T00:16:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sashi-mohan-debnath-and-others-vs-the-state-of-west-bengal-on-19-november-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sashi Mohan Debnath And Others vs The State Of West Bengal on 19 November, 1957"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132833","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=132833"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132833\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132833"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132833"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132833"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}