LAWS(PVC)-1915-7-88

ABDUL SHEIKH Vs. EMPEROR

Decided On July 09, 1915
ABDUL SHEIKH Appellant
V/S
EMPEROR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case was tried by Jury.

(2.) We have heard the learned Vakil appearing for the appellant. He contends that there has been a misdirection in the charge, first, because in the charge-sheet the common object has not at all been mentioned and he relies on the cases of Behari Mahton v. Queen-Empress 11 C. 106, Sabir v. Queen-Empress 22 C. 276 and Poresh Nath Sircar v. Emperor 33 C. 295; 2 C.L.J. 516; 3 Cr. L.J. 153. There are, however, other cases which go to show that the omission to mention the common object in the charge-sheet does not necessarily vitiate the trial. The second ground urged by the learned Vakil is that in the charge to the Jury, the learned Sessions Judge has not drawn their attention to the case set up by the defence and that some of the witnesses who were present at the time of the alleged occurrence were not examined in the trial.

(3.) The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer admits that the charge is inadequate.