Dashamani and Others Vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court 8 Jan 1999 Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5065 of 1998 (1999) CriLJ 2338
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5065 of 1998

Hon'ble Bench

Virendra Saran, J

Advocates

N.K. Sharma, for the Appellant; A.G.A., for the Respondent

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 374(3), 384#Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 235, 323, 325

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Virendra Saran, J.@mdashThe applicants Dashamani and Khilari alias Dinesh were convicted by the learned 3rd Additional Munsif Magistrate,

Gyanpur, district Varanasi under Sections 323 and 325 I.P.C. u/s 323 I.P.C. they were awarded three months'' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- each

and u/s 235 I.P.C. they were awarded one year''s R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each. The applicants filed Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1991 in the

Court of Sessions at Varanasi. The appeal came up for hearing before Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi and it was

discovered that in the memo of appeal there was no mention of the sentence awarded to the applicants u/s 325 I.P.C. Thereupon the applicants

made an application 24-Kha dated 26- 2-1994 praying that they may be permitted to include Section 325, I.P.C. in the memo of appeal. The

learned Additional Sessions Judge by his impugned order dated 11-11-1998 rejected the application on the ground that there was no provision in

law for allowing such an amendment in the memo of appeal. The applicants have challenged this order by means of this application.

2. I have heard Sri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Jagdish Tiwari learned State Counsel and Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar,

learned counsel for the complainant.

3. I have considered the points raised by the learned counsel on either side. Section 374(3), Cr.P.C. states :-

374(3) - Save as otherwise provided in Sub-section (2), any person,-

(a) convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the first class, or of the second class, or

(b)to(c)...

may appeal to the Court of Session.

The language of the Section is unambiguous and an appeal is provided against orders of conviction. Whenever an appeal is preferred by a convict

the judgment of conviction, as a whole, is under appeal and when such appeal is not dismissed summarily u/s 384 the Court is duty bound to

dispose it of on merits. Even though the particulars such as the sections under which appellant has been convicted, sentence awarded and the like

are, to appear on the face of the appeal for purpose of clarity but if there is any accidental omission it will not seal the fate of the appellant. In a

criminal case while judging the guilt of an accused hypertechnical rules of the pleadings cannot be allowed to intervene and come in the way of the

Court to impart justice. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should have exercised his judicial discretion by

permitting the applicants to amend the appeal by mentioning Section 325 and the sentence awarded there under to do justice in the case.

4. Accordingly this application is allowed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned is directed to permit the applicants to amend the appeal

by mentioning Section 325, I.P.C. and the sentence awarded there under in the memo of appeal. Needless to observe that the lower appellate

Court shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously.

From The Blog
Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Read More
M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Read More