Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a sessions trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas at Alipore, where eight accused were tried with a jury on charges under Sections 147 and 304 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; four of them were additionally charged under Section 201 of the IPC. The trial judge delivered a charge favorable to the accused. The jury returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty under Section 304/149 IPC, which the judge accepted, and he recorded a judgment of acquittal for all accused on that charge. However, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty under Section 147 IPC for all accused and under Section 201 IPC for the four accused charged with that offence. The judge disagreed with these guilty verdicts and, being of the opinion that the accused were not guilty, made a reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 to the Calcutta High Court, but only in respect of the charges on which the jury had convicted, while having already recorded acquittal on the Section 304/149 charge. The Calcutta High Court partly accepted the reference: it convicted five accused under Section 147 IPC, sentencing each to one year rigorous imprisonment, and convicted two of them under Section 201 IPC, sentencing each to three years rigorous imprisonment, with sentences to run concurrently; it acquitted the remaining accused on those charges. The convicted accused appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The only question was a question of law: whether the reference under Section 307 was competent in these circumstances and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to act on it. The appellants argued that the trial judge's recording of judgment was a mere irregularity and did not invalidate the reference. The respondent supported the reference. The Supreme Court examined Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It held that the words 'if in any such case' in Section 307(1) referred to the whole case tried by jury under Section 306(1). When a judge disagrees with the verdict and decides to submit the case to the High Court, he must submit the whole case against the accused, not a part. Section 307(2) specifically prohibited the judge from recording any judgment of acquittal or conviction on any of the charges on which the accused had been tried once he decided to submit the case. The recording of a judgment in such circumstances was not a mere irregularity but illegal. A lawful reference of the whole case was a condition precedent to the High Court's exercise of powers under Section 307(3), which required consideration of the entire evidence and due weight to the opinions of the Sessions Judge and jury. The partial reference prevented the High Court from fulfilling this requirement. The Court approved the decisions in Hazari Lal's case and Ramjanam Tewari, and disapproved Emperor v. Jagmohan and Emperor v. Muktar. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the reference made by the Additional Sessions Judge was incompetent, the High Court acted without jurisdiction in acting on it, and its judgment and convictions must be set aside. Although the proper order ordinarily would be to remit the case to the trial court for disposal according to law, in view of the long lapse of time and the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court rejected the reference. The appeal was thus allowed in the sense that the convictions were set aside and the reference was rejected.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Sessions Trial Reference to High Court - Whole Case Reference Mandatory - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 306, 307 - When a Sessions Judge disagrees with the jury's verdict on any charge and decides to submit the case to the High Court, he must submit the whole case against the accused, not a part; recording an acquittal on charges where the jury found not guilty while referring only remaining charges renders the reference incompetent. Held that a partial reference prevents the High Court from considering the entire evidence and exercising jurisdiction under Section 307(3). B) Criminal Procedure - Recording of Judgment - Prohibition Under Section 307(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 307(2) - The trial judge violated the mandatory prohibition by recording a judgment of acquittal on some charges when submitting the case to the High Court; such recording is illegal and not a mere irregularity. Held that the mandatory language of Section 307(2) forbids recording any judgment of acquittal or conviction on any charge once a reference is made. C) Criminal Procedure - High Court Powers on Reference - Condition Precedent of Lawful Reference - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 307(3) - The High Court may exercise appellate powers and consider the entire evidence only when the reference under Section 307 is according to law; a reference that is not of the whole case is not according to law. Held that the High Court acted without jurisdiction in convicting or acquitting accused on the partial reference. D) Precedents - Approval and Disapproval of High Court Decisions - Case Law on Section 307 CrPC - Hazari Lal's case and Ramjanam Tewari approved; Emperor v. Jagmohan and Emperor v. Muktar disapproved. Held that the approved decisions correctly stated the requirement of a whole-case reference, while the disapproved decisions allowed a partial reference contrary to the statute. E) Disposition - Remedy for Invalid Reference - Long Lapse and Peculiar Circumstances - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Section 307 - Although the proper order would be to remit the case to the trial court for disposal according to law, the Supreme Court rejected the reference due to long lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case, setting aside the High Court judgment. Held that the High Court judgment was set aside and the reference rejected.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference made under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 by the Additional Sessions Judge was competent when the judge accepted the jury's acquittal on some charges and recorded acquittal, but disagreed with guilty verdict on other charges; and whether the High Court acted with jurisdiction in convicting or acquitting accused on such partial reference.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the reference under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was incompetent because the Additional Sessions Judge recorded acquittal on some charges and referred only the remaining charges, not the whole case. The High Court acted without jurisdiction in acting on the partial reference. The High Court's judgment and convictions were set aside. However, instead of remitting the case to the trial court, the reference was rejected in view of the long lapse of time and peculiar circumstances of the case.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1898 read together require whole case reference when judge disagrees with jury verdict
- Section 307(2) prohibits recording judgment of acquittal or conviction on any charge when submitting case to High Court
- recording judgment is illegal
- not mere irregularity
- High Court cannot act on partial reference
- lawful reference of whole case is condition precedent for High Court's power under Section 307(3)
- partial reference prevents consideration of entire evidence
