Thom, J.The applicant has been convicted u/s 20, Treasure Trove Act, 1878, and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. It appears that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate took cognizance of the case against the accused and then proceeded to try it himself without having in accordance with the terms of Section 191, Criminal P.C., informed the applicant that he was entitled to have the case tried by another Court. This omission on the part of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is clearly an irregularity which vitiates the trial. In the result the conviction and sentence of the accused are set aside and as he is on bail he need not surrender to his bail.
Sardar v. Emperor
(High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad)
| 07-02-1934
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE JUSTICE THOM, J
Eq Citations
- 1934 3 AWR 471
- 151 IND. CAS. 357
- AIR 1934 ALL 693
- LQ/AllHC/1934/24
Head Note
Constitution of India — Arts. 226 and 136 — Criminal trial — Omission to inform accused that he was entitled to have case tried by another Court — Effect of — Held, such omission is an irregularity which vitiates trial
