EMPEROR Vs. PATRAKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is difficult to characterize this matter although it has been treated as a criminal reference by the District Magistrate. The Sessions Judge in a Sessions trial convicted the accused under Section 302, I.P.C., but for reasons given in the concluding portion of the judgment he inflicted the lesser sentence of transportation for life.

(2.) The Local Government Pleader appears to have addressed a letter to the local District Magistrate giving reasons why the sentence of death should have been passed. On this, the District Magistrate sent a letter to the Registrar of the High Court enclosing the Government Pleader's letter and recommending that the death penalty instead of transportation for life should be imposed on the accused. The Registrar very properly returned hist letter and the record to the Disrict Magistrate and declined to entertain it when it was sent direct. He however suggested that the record may be resubmitted through the Sessions Judge as laid down in Ch. 10, Rule 6, of the General Rules (Criminal). We may add that this rule refers to cases which can be properly referred by District Magistrates. The District Magistrate then submitted the two letters to the Sessions Judge for being forwarded to the High Court, and the. Sessions Judge has forwarded them with his own remarks. He has taken serious objection to two expressions used by the District Magistrate in his original letter addressed to the Registrar, as well as to its general tone.

(3.) A learned Judge of this Court ordered notice to issue to the accused to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced and remarked that the complaint of the Sessions Judge would be considered at the hearing.