TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed, reduced sentence upheld after procedural irregularities</h1> <h3>Abdul Rahman Versus Emperor</h3> The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the reduced sentence of nine months of rigorous imprisonment. The court found that the procedural ... - Issues Involved:1. Alleged act of insolvency by D.K. Cassim & Sons.2. Forgery of dates and serial numbers on warrants.3. Conviction and sentencing of the accused.4. Procedural objections regarding the reading of depositions and interpretation of evidence.5. Applicability of Sections 535 and 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Act of Insolvency by D.K. Cassim & SonsThe appeal arises from an insolvency petition presented by Mani Iyer against D.K. Cassim & Sons, alleging the firm allowed the attachment of certain immoveable properties to remain undischarged for over three weeks, thereby committing an act of insolvency. However, the attachment was discharged within three weeks of the date of execution, thus no act of insolvency occurred.2. Forgery of Dates and Serial Numbers on WarrantsTo support the insolvency petition, the dates of execution of the warrants were altered. The Judge dismissed the petition and initiated criminal proceedings against Mani Iyer and Abdul Rahman for abetting the forgery to injure trade rivals. The District Magistrate formulated charges against both accused for instigating unknown persons to forge dates and serial numbers on the warrants and attempting to alter the register dates to match the forged warrants.3. Conviction and Sentencing of the AccusedThe District Magistrate convicted both accused on the first charge and sentenced them to two years of rigorous imprisonment. No sentence was passed on the second charge. The High Court affirmed the convictions but reduced the sentence to nine months of rigorous imprisonment. Abdul Rahman obtained special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council.4. Procedural Objections Regarding the Reading of Depositions and Interpretation of EvidenceThe appellant argued that the Magistrate did not inform the accused of their right to have the case tried by another Court, as required under Sections 190 and 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court found that the Magistrate was proceeding under Clause (a) of Section 190, not Clause (c), and thus the objection was not valid.Additionally, an affidavit claimed procedural irregularities in the reading over of depositions to witnesses and their interpretation. The affidavit stated that depositions were read over by an interpreter while the Magistrate continued recording other depositions, and some witnesses read their depositions silently without them being read out loud or explained to the accused. The High Court required a report from the District Magistrate, who stated that the procedure was adopted to save time and meet the wishes of the counsel for the accused.5. Applicability of Sections 535 and 537 of the Code of Criminal ProcedureSections 535 and 537 deal with curing procedural errors and irregularities. The High Court emphasized that no serious defect in a criminal trial could be justified by the counsel of the accused. The objections raised did not indicate any prejudice or failure of justice. The primary purpose of reading depositions is to ensure the witness's accuracy, not to allow the accused to suggest corrections. The High Court found no violation of the Code's provisions in the course taken with respect to the witnesses.The second objection, regarding witnesses reading their depositions silently, was more serious. Section 360 requires depositions to be read over to the witness, not merely read by them. However, the High Court concluded that such an omission, without any probable suggestion of failure of justice, is not enough to quash a conviction. The curative provisions of Sections 535 and 537 support the conviction.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the appeal, advising His Majesty that the procedural irregularities did not warrant quashing the conviction, as they did not result in any failure of justice. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the reduced sentence of nine months of rigorous imprisonment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
