SANKATHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sankatha Singh and others appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing their application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge, Gyanpur, holding the order of his predecessor for the rehearing of an appeal which had been dismissed earlier to be ultra vires and without jurisdiction and directing the Magistrate to take immediate steps to execute the order passed by it, according to law.

(2.) The appellants were convicted by the Magistrate, Ist Class. Gyanpur, of offence under Ss. 452 and 323 read with S.34, 1. P.C. Kharpattu, one of the appellants, was also convicted of an offence under S. 324, 1. P.C. They appealed against their conviction. The appeal was fixed for hearing on November 30, 1956, on that date, neither the appellants nor their counsel appeared in Court and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. The relevant portion of his order is

(3.) On December 17, 1956, an application was presented by the appellants praying that the case be restored to its original number so that justice be done to them. In explaining their getting injuries. This application was allowed, on July 2, 1 957, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Tej Pal Singh, who had dismissed the appeal. His reasons for allowing the application appear, from his order, to be that the application, supported by an affidavit, showed that there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the appellants-accused at the time of the hearing of the appeal, that S. 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) enjoined the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits after hearing the appellant or his pleader and the Public Prosecutor, that no notice was ever issued to the appellants as required by S. 422 of the Code, that S. 367 of the Code laid down what a judgment should contain and that his judgment of November 30, 1956, amounted to no judgment as it did not contain some of those salient points, that the judgment was without jurisdiction as the case was not really considered and no independent judgment was arrived at and that it was necessary that the appeal be re-heard in the ends of justice.