| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 2229 1961 SLD 2229 = 1961 PLD 523 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Revision No. 507 of 1959, decided on 19th August, R 1959.
Presented By:Murshed, J,
Aamidul Huq and Akhtaruddin Ahmad for Petitioner. M. Fazlul Huq for the Opposite-Party. Maksumul Hakim amicus curiae.
Criminal Revision No. 507 of 1959, decided on 19th August, R 1959.
Presented By:Murshed, J,
Aamidul Huq and Akhtaruddin Ahmad for Petitioner. M. Fazlul Huq for the Opposite-Party. Maksumul Hakim amicus curiae.
BABULA L AGARWALA-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE-Opposite-Party
Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Section: Ss. 367, 369, 419 &.561-A
Appeal-Rejection of application for admission of appeal on sole ground that appellant had not surrendered to serve sentence passed on him-"Order", not a "judgment" within meaning of S. 367 or 369, Cr. P. C.-Court has power to order restoration of appeal-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 367, 369, 419 &.561-A. An. appeal was rejected by the Dacca High Court, outright because according to the uniform practice of that Court an appel lant is not heard unless he surrenders for the purpose of serving the sentence passed on him. The appellant, thereupon, presented an application under section 561-A `of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 for the restoration of the application for admission of appeal. On the question whether the High Court has jurisdiction to pass the order prayed for : Held, that when an order of dismissal is passed without con sidering the merits of the appeal, the appeal may be subsequently heard by the same Court. The order-that was passed by the High Court was not an order passed under section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 because in summarily dismissing an appeal under section 421 of the Code, the Court has to peruse the memo randum of appeal and the copy of the judgment furnished under section 419 or section 420 of the Code. The order that was passed by the High Court, was made in accordance with the long established practice of the High Court (Dacca) as well as its predecessor, to the effect, that the Court would refuse to entertain or hear an appeal when the appellant has not surrendered in accordance with the sentence passed on him. The order rejecting the application for admission of appeal amounted to a refusal to entertain or hear the appeal. It was not an order made under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and as such it was not a "Judgment" within the meaning of section 367 or 369 of the Code. There was no consideration of the petition of appeal filed by the appellant or of the judgment pronounced by the trial Court: The appellant was refused a hearing and the Court refrained from entertaining the appeal on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, although in the…