1955 (3) TMI 57 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Use of evidence from one case against the accused in another case by the Sessions Judge.
2. Legitimacy of the complaint regarding the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge.
3. Interpretation of Section 353 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the use of evidence in separate cases.
4. Comparison with precedents like 'Doat Ali v. Emperor' and 'Public Prosecutor v. Sinnappa' to determine the legality of the Sessions Judge's procedure.

Analysis:
The judgment involves two cases arising from Criminal Appeals against the judgments of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The accused were charged under different sections of the Indian Penal Code for attacking the complainant with spears. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate convicted the accused in both cases, but on appeal, the Sessions Judge confirmed the convictions while reducing the sentences.

The main issue raised in the revision cases was that the Sessions Judge had used evidence from one case against the accused in the other case, which was deemed to have vitiated his judgment. The revision petitioners argued that this procedure was not in line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 353, which mandates that evidence in each case should be based on the evidence adduced in that case alone.

The court referred to precedents like 'Doat Ali v. Emperor' and 'Public Prosecutor v. Sinnappa' to support the argument that using evidence from one case against the accused in another case is not permissible. It was emphasized that an order in each case should be solely based on the evidence presented in that particular case. The court concluded that the Sessions Judge's procedure was illegal, leading to the decision to reverse his judgment and order a rehearing of the two appeals.

In summary, the High Court held that the Sessions Judge's practice of using evidence from one case against the accused in another case was not in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The court emphasized the importance of separate consideration of evidence in each case and cited relevant precedents to support its decision to reverse the judgment and order a rehearing of the appeals.