JAGAT BAHADUR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 30-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

822 
JAGAT BAHADUR SINGH; 
v. 
STATE 01'' MADHYA l'RADESH 
November 30, 1965 
[A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.J 
Code of -Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898), ss. 31(1), 32 and 
423(1) (a)-Maximum sentence appellate court can impose. 
The appellant was tried by the 
Magistrate of the First Class for 
offences under ss. 170, 342 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code and was 
acquitted. 
On appeal, the High Court set aside the acquittal, and in 
respect of the offence under s. 392, sentenced him to 4 years R.I. 
In his appeal to this Court,, the appellant contended that if the Mallis· 
trate had convicted him he could not have passed a sentence exceeding 
2 years for the offence under s. 392 by virtue of s. 32 of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, and therefore, the High Court was incompetent to pass 
the sentence of 4 years. 
HELD : As an appellate court is not competent to impose a punish-
ment higher, than the maximum that could have been imposed by the 
trial court, the High Court was in error in sentencing the appellant to 
undergo imprisonment in respect of the offence under s. 392 for a period 
exceeding 2 years. [826 G; 827 CJ 
An appellate Court is a "court of error'', that is, a court established for 
correcting an error. If, while purporting to correct an error, the appel~ 
late C01'Tt were to do something which was beyond the competence of 
the trial court. it could not be said to be correcting an error of the trial 
court. Therefore, the power of the appellate court to pass a sentence 
must be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an 
appeal has been brought before it. [826 H; 827 A, Bl 
Case Jaw referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
156 of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
February 8, 1963 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal 
Appeal No. 121 of 1962. 
E. C. Agarwala for P. C. Aganvala, for the appellant. 
M. N. Shroff for I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of ~he Court was delivered by 
Mudholkar, J. 
The appellant, a police constable, was tried 
for offences under ss. 170, 342 and 392, Indian Penal Code 
but was acquitted by the trying Magistrate of all these offences. 
The High Court to which an appeal was preferred by the State 
Govermnent set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant of 
each of these offences. 
It sentenced him to rigorous imprison-
A 
., -
' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
• 
F 
G 
} 
H 
-. 
, 
.. 
f 
JAGAT BAHADUR v. M. P. STATE (Mudholkar, !.) 
823 
A 
ment for a period of one year in respect of the offence under 
s. 170 and to a period of six months for an offence under s. 342. 
In respect of the offence under s. 392 the High Court sentenced 
him to andergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years 
and further ordered that all the sentences should run concurrently. 
B 
Briefly stated the prosecution case was that the appellant who 
was posted at Rewa took leave for 15 days from August 7, 1958 
with a view to go to his village Hati in District Satna but instead 
went to Jabalpur wearing the uniform of a police head constable. 
There he met the complainant Ram Kumar, P.W. 1 at the Omti 
Bridge near the Pan shop of one Saligram, P.W. 2. He engaged 
·C 
him in conversation and learnt from him that the latter was from 
village Beldara, police station Maihar. He told Ram Kumar that 
a theft had been reported from that area and that he had come 
to Jabalpur to investigate into it and that Ram Kumar answered 
the particulars of the man wanted in connection with the theft. It 
may be mentioned that Ram Kumar was wearing a gold 'mohar', • 
D threaded in a piece of string, round his neck. Questioned about 
it by the appellant he told him that he had received it as a present 
from his father-in-law. 
The appellant took Ram Kumar along 
with him from place to place and at one place he tried to relieve 
Ram Kumar of the gold mohar saying that it was a stolen l;lrticle. 
Ram Kumar resisted and protested and so also did one Phoolchand 
E who was there. 
The appellant then got into a rickshaw along 
with Ram Kumar on the pretext of taking him to the police 
station. 
Instead of stopping at the police station he asked the 
rickshaw to proceed to Katni road and dismissed the rickshaw 
puller after paying his fare. 
He then gave a beating to Ram 
F Kumar and snatched the gold mohar from his neck. While they 
were standing on the road to Katni a motor truck happened to 
pass that way. 
The appel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.