RAJJAB ALI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances under which this Rule was issued are shortly these: In April 1917 there was a riot in the course of which one Hasanuddin received a lathi blow on the head which resulted in his death, Ali Newaz being the person who was alleged to have struck the fatal blow. In connection with this occurrence six persons, namely, Ali Newaz, Nabi Newaz, Hamid Ali, Surat Ali, Jafar Ali and Akram Ali, were tried together and on conviction under Sections 147 and 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code, Ali Newaz was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, Hamid Ali to three years, Nabi Newaz to eighteen months and the remaining three, viz., Surat Ali, Jafar Ali and Akram Ali, were sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment. Rajjab Ali one of the accused in the case was tried subsequently, lie having been ill at the time of the trial of the other accused persons. Rajjab Ali, who was convicted last and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, appealed from jail. His appeal was placed on the undefended list, and we summarily rejected the appeal without calling for the record, as on the face of the judgment there was nothing to show that the sentence was inappropriate. The other convicted persons subsequently appealed through a vakil of this Court. The appeal, except as regards Ali Newaz, was admitted for consideration of sentence only and the record was sent for and ultimately, after hearing the vakil for the appellants and the Deputy Legal Remembrancer for the Crown, the learned Judges, with fuller materials before them, reduced the sentences passed on the five appellants to rigorous imprisonment for four months only.

(2.) An application was then made to us to review our order summarily rejecting the appeal of Rajjab Ali and to reduce the sentence passed on him, as his case, it was urged, was not distinguishable from that of the five appellants sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. We thought that for the sake of consistency the sentence on Rajjab Ali should also be reduced. We had our doubts whether, having regard to the decision of the Full Bench in In the matter of Gibbons (1886) I.L.R. 14 Calc. 42, we could review our order, but we issued the Rule as we were informed that in some more recent cases this Court had reviewed its orders in criminal cases. See King-Emperor v. Romesh Chandra Gupta, 22 C.W.N. 168.

(3.) The matter has now been argued before us, and the learned vakil for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the following cases decided by this Court after the Full Bench decision: Bibhuti Molvun Roy v. Dasi Money Dasi (1902) 7 C.W.N. vii n, Bibhuty Mohun Roy v. Dasimoni Dassi (1902) 10 C.L.J. 80. In the matter of An Attorney (1914) I.L.R. 41 Calc. 734.