STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, the question of the interpretation of S. 423 (l) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code arises.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that respondent Shankar wanted to have illicit intimacy with Mst. Mithana who was not agreeable to his advances. In order to take his revenge he cut off her nose on January 28, 1959. The allegation against the other respondent Goberdhan was that he helped Shankar in felling her down and caught her while Shanker out off her nose. Both the respondents were tried under S. 326 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the Magistrate 1st Class found them guilty and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months each. An appeal was taken against this order to the Sessions Judge, Sitapur, who on June 12, 1959, set aside the order of conviction and directed the case to be committed to the Court of Session. On July 15, 1959, the Magistrate committed the respondents to the court of Session to stand their trial under S. 326 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A revision was taken to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge.

(3.) The High Court held that the crime was not only brutal but most cowardly and that the offence was of a grave nature; that the Magistrate was wrong in assuming jurisdiction in such a case and that the cutting of a woman's nose was treated as a trivial matter by the Magistrate. The learned Judge, however, was of the opinion that a Sessions Judge hearing an appeal against conviction had no power to direct commitment to the court of session; all that he could do was to recommend enhancement of the sentence but it was not worthwhile enhancing the sentence because the enhancement could only be from 18 months to two years. He therefore allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and directed that the appeal be reheard on merits. Against this order the State has come in appeal to this Court by Special Leave. It may be mentioned that on an application made to the learned Judge under S. 561A, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Judge, after referring to several decided cases, was still of the opinion that his previous order was correct and he declined to give a certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) and the State has come in appeal by Special Leave. It is not necessary to decide the question whether the application under S. 561A was entertainable in the circumstances of the case.