LexKAPIL DEO SHUKLA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1957 Ramgopal Ganpatraj Ruia & Another v. The State of Bombay Sinha J. 1957 October 14. 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] into matters which should have been left to be deter- mined at the trial. Perhaps, they had to cover the ground which had been so elaborately discussed in the order of the learned Presidency Magistrate. For the reasons given above, we have come to the conclusion that there are no merits in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. It is hoped that the Court of Session, which will now be in seizin of the case, will conduct the trial and conclude the proceedings with all reasonable speed and without any avoidable delay. We hope that the inordinate delay in bringing this case to trial has not prejudicially affected the· case of either party. Appeal dismissed. KAPIL DEO SHUKLA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (B. P. SINHA, P. GoVINDA MENON and J. L. KAPUR, JJ). Jury trial-Evidence in English-Jurors not knowing English we/I-Whether trial void-Prejudice-Memorandum of appeal- Practice of not setting out specific grounds, if proper-Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898), ss. 418 and 419. The appellant was tried by a Sessions Judge and a jury for offences under ss. 477-A and 408, Indian Penal Code. A large volume of documentary evidence was in English and the state- ment of one of the principal witnesses was given in English. The main question for decision was the authorship of the forged documents. It was found that the jurors were not well versed in English and were not in a position to decide the main question. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty and accept- ing the verdict the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant. The State appealed to the High Court. In the memorandum of appeal only one ground was taken, 'that the order of acquittal is against the weight of evidence on the record and contrary to law" The High Court accepted the appeal and convicted the appellant. The appellant contended that the appeal before the High Court was incompetent as no particular errors of law, upon which alone and appeal lay under s. 418, Code of Criminal Proc~du~e, were set ~mt in the memorandum of appeal and that the tnal m the Session Court was no trial in the eye of Jaw. S.C.R. SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 641 Held, that a memorandum of appeal is meant to be a succinct 1957 statement of the grounds .upon which the appellant propose& to . - support the appeal. The practice prevailing in the Allahabad Kap1l Deo Shukto High Court of not taking specific grounds either of law or fact is v. to be disapproved even assuming that s. 419 of the Code of The State oJ Criminal Procedure does not in terms require the setting out of Uttar Pradesh such grounds. Held further, that the trial before the Sessions, Judge was coram non judi<;e on account of the incompetence of'the jury to decide the question of the authorship of the forged c\ocuments. In such a case the question of prejudice does not arise as it.is not a mere irregularity, but a case of '•mis-trial". Ras Behari Lal v. The King Emperor, (1933) L.R. 60 I.A. 354 followed. Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction : Criminal Appeal No. 82 .of 1957. · Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th August, 1953, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1951 arisi~g out of the judgment and other dated the 31st July, 1950, of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge At Allahabad in Criminal Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1949. S. P. ·Sinha and B. C. Misra, for the appellant. G. C. Mathur and C. P. Lai, for the respondent. 1957. October 14. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J.-This appeal by speCial leave is directed Sinha,J. against the judgment and order dated August 12, 1953, of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Desai and Beg JJ.), setting aside the order of acquit- tal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Allahabad, dated July 31, 1950, in Sessions. Trial No. 22 of 1949. The appellant had been charged under ss. 408 and 4 77 A of the Indian Penal Code, and tried by jury of 5. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury and acquitted the accused. On appeal by the Govetnment of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court in a judgment covering about 130 typed pages set aside the order of acquittal and L2SC/61-4 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.