RATAN RAI versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 30-01-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C,R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1J3 
rejoinder, we presume that such facilities will continue 
to be afforded to them in the future and the inconvc-
mence 
and 
harassment which 
would otherwise be 
caused to 
them will be 
avoided. A humane and 
considerate administration of the relevant provisions 
of the Income-tax Act would go a long way in allaying 
the apprehensions of the assessees and if that is done 
in the true spirit, no· assessee will be in a position to 
charge the Revenue with administering the provisions 
of the Act with "an evil eye and unequal hand".· 
We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that 
there is 
no . substance 
in these petitions 
and. they 
should be dismissed with costs. There will be, how-
ever, one set of costs between respondents in each of 
the . petitions . and one set of costs in each group of 
these petitions, viz., (1) Petitions Nos. 97 & 97-A of 
1956, 
(2) Petitions Nos. 44/56 and 85/56, (3) Petitions 
Nos. 86/56, 
87 /56, 88/56, 
111/56, 112/56 and 158/56, 
(4) Petitions Nos. 211 to 215 of 1956, and (5) Petitions 
Nos. 225 to 229 of 1956. 
Petitions dismissed. 
RATAN RAI 
ti, 
ST ATE OF BIHAR 
[BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA and J. K. KAPUR JJ.] 
Reference-fury trial-fudge disagreeing 
with 
the 
verdict-
Procedure-Duty of counsel-High Cou1·t-lf can 
accept 
majority 
verdict without considering the entire evidence-Supreme Court-
lf should adopt the procedure-Cude of Criminal Procedure (Act 
V of 1898), as ame~dt:d by Act XXVI of 1955, s. 307. 
· 
The appellal'lts 
were charged under 
ss. 435 
and 436 of the 
Indian Penal Code and were tried by a jury, who returned a 
~ajority 
~erdict 
?f guil.ty. 
The 
Assistant Sessions 
Judge 
disagreed with the said verdict and made a reference to the. High 
Court. 
At the hearing of the reference the counsel for the appellants 
only contended that the charge to the jury was defective, and did 
not place the entire evidence before the Judges, - who only consi-
dered the 
objections 
urged, 
and nothing 
more, 
and held the 
1956 
Pa•Mlal Bitifraj 
v. 
Unum of l•di<> 
Blragwali]. 
1957 
January 3(}. 
1957 
Rotan Rai 
·v. 
Stak -0/ Bihar 
274 
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1957] 
reference to be incompetent and found the appellants guilty . and 
convicted them. 
· 
Held, that in a reference under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure it 
\Vas 
the 
duty 
of counsel 
to place, 
and -it was 
incumbent 
on the High Court to consider, the entire evidence and 
the charge as framed and placed before the jury and to come to 
its own conclusion, after giving due weight to the opiniOn of the 
trial 
Judge· and- the ve_rdict of the jury,-
~nd to acquit or convict 
the accused of the offences of which the jury could have conYicted 
or acquitted him. 
It_ was wrong of the High Court to pass 
judg~ent without co~sidering the entire evidence. 
It 
is 
not 
proper 
for 
the 
Supreme 
Court 
to 
adopt the 
procedure 
of 
considering 
the 
entire 
evidence 
and come to 
a 
conclusion 
which according to the provisions 
Of s. 307(3) of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court should have done. 
Akhlakali Hayatalli v. The State of Bombay, (1954) S.C.R. 435 
and 
Ramanugrah 
Singh v. The Emperor, A.l.R. 1946 
P.C. 151, 
referred to. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION ·: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 104 of 1955. 
Appeal by special leave . from 
the judgment and 
order dated September 9, 1953, of the Patna High 
Court in Jury Reference No. 1 of 1952 arising out of 
the Reference made on February 16, 1952, by the 
Assistant Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Chapra, in connec-
tion with Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1951. 
s: P. Verma, for the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. 
B. K. Saran and R. C. Prasad, for the respondent. 
1957. January 30. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
BHAGWATI J.-The appellants Nos. 2 . and 3, who 
are 
the surviving appellants 
after 
the deat)i of 
appellant No. 1 during the pendency of this appeal, 
were charged with having committed offences. under 
ss. 435 and 436 -0£ the Indian Penal Code and were 
tried by the Second Assistant Sessions Judge of Saran, 
Chapra, with the aid of a jury. The jury returned a 
majority verdict that both of them were guilty of the 
offences under those sections. The Assistant Sessions 
Judge disagreed with the said verdict and made a 
zeference to the High Court of Judicature at Patna 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
275 
under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The 
said reference was heard by a Division Bench of

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