LexNARAYAN RAO versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 283 orders of the courts below annulling the usufructuary mortgage bond in question set aside and the transac- tion held binding on the estate of the insolvents. It follows that the lease back to the mortgagors being a part of the same transaction is equally binding on the estate of the insolvents. The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout, to come out of the estate in the hands of the Official Receiver who must pay his own costs. Appeal allowed. NARAYAN RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (B. P. SINHA, JAFAR IMAM AND J. L. KAPUR JJ.) Sessions Trial-Proceeding on Police Report-Omission· of Police Officer to furnish necessary copies to the accused-Duty of inquiring Magistrate-Validity of proceeding and trial-Code of Criminal Procedure -(Act V of 1898), as amended by the amending Act of 1955 (26 of 1955), SS. 173(4), 207A(3), 537. The word 'shall' occurring in sub-s. ( 4) of s. 173 and sub-s. (3) of s. 2Q7 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not mandatory but directory and a non-compliance with the provisions of those sub- sections, unless it can be shown to have prejudiced the accused person in his defence, cannot invalidate the commitment proceed- ings or the subsequent trial. Magistrates holding inquiries under s. 207A(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must, however, be circumspect and see that an accused person is not handicapped in his defence by any omission on the part of the Police Officer to furhish him with necessary copies. Where such non-compliance is found : to cause any prejudice to the accused, the Court should in the interest of justice reopen the proceedings and insist on a full compliance with the provisions. When it causes no prejudice, it is a mere irregularity curable under s. 537 of the Code. Abdul Rahman v. The King-Emperor, (1929) L.R. 55 I.A. 96, Pulukurl Kotayya v. King-Emperor, (1947) L.R. 74 I.A. 65 and Gurbachan Singh v. The State of Punjab, Cr. A. No. 48 of 1957 applied. 1957 N. Subramania Iyer ,., The 0 fficia/ Receiver, Qui/on Sinha J. 1957 July, 15. 1957 Narayan Rao •• The State of Andhra Pradesh Sinha J. 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] Consequently, in a case where an accused person was com- mitted to the Court of Session on a charge under s. 302 of the Indian Pena.I Code and found guilty thereunder by the Sessions Judge and awarded the capital sentence and the order of convic- tion and Eentencc was unassailable on merits, but the Police Officer had omitted to furnish him copies as required by s. I 73( 4) and the inquiring Magistrate to cause such copies to be furnished to him ·under s. 207A(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such omission could not be shown to have in any way prejudiced the accused person in his defence, it was a mere irregularity that did not vitiate either the commitment proceedings or the trial and was cured by s. 537 of the Code. CRIMINAL APPELLATI> JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1957. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 20, 1956, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in Criminal Confirmation Case No. 18 of 1956 and Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated April 25, 1956, of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Karimnagar in Criminal Case No. 9/8, of 1956. R. C. Prasad, for the appiellant. R. H. Dhebar and T. Af. Sen, for the respondent. 1957. July 15. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J.-The main question for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether and, if so, how far non-compliance with the provisions of ss. 173(4) and 207 A(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has affected the legality of thl~ proceedings and the trial resulting in the conviction of the appellant. The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge of Krimnagar in what used to be the State of Hyderabad (now part of the State of Andhra Pradesh), under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for the murder of his brother Baga Rao, and sentenced to death. The conviction and the sentence were affirmed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh,. at Hyderabad, on appeal and on a reference by the learned Sessions Judge. Along with the appellant, three other persons, named Lingarao, the appellant's brother, Narsingrao, the nephew of the appellant and son of Lingarao S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 285 1957 Narayan Rao v. aforesaid, and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.