NANDA CHHITTAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara the accused-appellant Nanda and Chhittar has been convicted under section 307 of the I. P. C. The judgment convicting the accused, was pronounced on October 24, 1979 but on the application of the accused that he wants to lead evidence on the question of sentence, the case was adjourned to October 29, 1979. The accused did not lead any evidence and before a sentence could be passed preferred an appeal in this Court against his conviction under section 307 of the I. P. C.

(2.) THE question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether under section 374 Cr. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as the 'code") an appeal lies to this Court only against finding of guilt or an appeal will only lie when it is followed by some consequential order i. e. sentence or an order under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1980 (for short "the Act") or under section 360 Cr. P. C. In other words, whether the term "convicted" or "conviction" in section 374 of the Code means only a finding of guilt or it means finding of guilt followed by sentence or an order as aforesaid.

(3.) "craies on Statute Law" at page 168-169, under the heading "use of same words in different senses in the same Act" has said "it is a sound rule of construction, said Cleasby B, in Courtanld vs. Legh, "to give the same meaning to the same words occurring in different parts of the Act of Parliament. " The presumption that the same words are used in the same meaning is however very slight and it is proper, "if sufficient reason can be assigned, to construe a word in one part of an Act in a different sense from that which it bears in another part of an Act. " Reference was made to the observations of Turner J. in Re National Savings Bank (3 ). Reference was also made to R. V. Burt, ex, P. Presburg (4 ).