LexSASHI MOHAN DEBNATH AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1947 Kirpal Kaur v. Bachan Sinch Sarkar J. 1957 November, 19 · 962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958] date of Bhau Nath Singh's death, or the date of the widows' taking possession, which seems to have been at or shortly after his death." As there is no evidence of any arrangement with the respondents under which Harnam Kaur can be said to have taken possession of the lands, her possession must be taken to have been adverse to the collaterals. Admittedly such possession commenced in 1920 on the death of Ram Ditta and has continued ever since. So at the date of the mortgage and gift, Harnam Kaur had acquired a title to the lands by adverse posses- sion. The respondents' claim must fail. We, therefore, allow the appeal with costs through- out. Appeal allowed. SASH! MOHAN DEBNATH AND OTHERS v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL (BHAGWATI, B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR and GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.) Sessions Trial-Reference-Judge agreeing with jury's verdict of non-guilty on some of the charges but in dis- agreement with the verdict of guilty in respect of others- If must refer the whole case against the accused-Record· ing of judgment of acquittal in agreement with the jury's verdict-Legality-High Court if can act on a partial reference-Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898), SS. 307, 306. Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read together clearly indicate that where the Sessions Judge disagrees with the verdict of the jury and is of the opinion that the case should be submitted to the High Court, he must submit the whole case against the accused, not a part of it. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty in respect of some charges and not guilty in respect of others he cannot record his judgment of acquittal in respect of the latter charges in agreement with the jury In contravention of S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 963 the mandatory provision of s, 307 (2) of the Code. Such J9S7 reeording must have the effect of preventing the High Sa.rhl Mohan Court from considering the entire evidence against the Deb""14 and Others accused and exercising its jurisdiction under s. 307 (3). v. Hazari Lal's case, (1932) I.L.R. Pat. 395 and Ramjanam ~ State o[ Tewari, (1935) I.L.R. Pat. 717, approved. Wen IJelwill EmpeTOT v. Jagmohan, I.L.R. (1917) Allahabad 240, and Emperor v. Muktar, (1943) 48 C.W.N. 547, disapproved. The Emperor v. Bishnu Chandra Das, (1933) 37 C.W.N, 1180, King Emperor v. Ananda Charan Ray, (1916) 21 C.W.N. 435, and Emperor v. Nawal Behari, (1930) I.L.R . .All. 881, considered. Consequently,· in a case where eight persons were put up for trial in the ~ourt of Session charged under ss. 14'1 .and 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code and four of them were further charged under s. 201 of the .Indian Penal Code .and the jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guil,ty under s. 304/149 and guilty under ss. 147 and 201 and the .Judge accepting the. former. recorded ,a judgment of .acquittal in the case of each accused but disagreeing #1th the latter referred the matter to the High Court, th& ret.1-- -ence was incompetent and the High Court was iii enor ill acting upon it and its judgment must be set aside. Held, further, that although the proper order in Suc;h a , -case should be to remit the case to the trial ci>urt for dis- posal according to law, in view of the· long lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of this case the reference must be rejected. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 114 of 1954. Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 21, 1954, of the Calcutta High Court in Reference No. 6 of 1954, under Section 307 of the Criminal Prqce. dure Code made by the Additional Ses.sions Judge, 24 Parganas at. Alipore on the June 7, 1954, in Ses- sions Trial No. 2 of May, 1954. S. C. Isaacs, and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appel· 1an,ts. A. C. Mitra, D. N. Mukherjee and P. K. Bose, for the respondent. 1957, November 19. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by . IMAM J.-In this appeal by special leave the sub:- d h h ... ,. stantial question for consi eration is w et er the reference made to the Calcutta High Court by the Ad· 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' [1958] 1957 ditional Sessions Judge of Alipur under s .. 307 of sashi Mohan the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred Debnath amJ Othersto as the Code) was competent and, if not, whether Th ;· ., the High Court acted with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.