Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    Sardar v. Emperor

    1. The applicant has been convicted under Section 20 of the 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 of the Cr PC, 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.

    2. 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.

    V.S

    3. Conviction quashed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Sardar v. Emperor
    (Feb 7, 1934)