CHANDI PRASAD SINGH versus THE ST ATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

CHANDI PRASAD SINGH versus THE ST ATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

The Sessions Judge acted in accordance with law by not referring the charge under section 409 to the High Court, as section 307 Cr.P.C. applies only to jury trials. The appellant's status was that of an agent, not a servant, considering his duties as Secretary. There was no violation of procedural provisions...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Chandi Prasad Singh; Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 1955
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment of Allahabad High Court Affirming Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence affirmed
Legal Topics
Misappropriation, Falsification of Accounts, Trial Procedure, Servant Versus Agent Distinction, Joinder of Charges
Criminal Law Misappropriation Falsification of Accounts Trial Procedure Servant Versus Agent Distinction Joinder of Charges

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandi Prasad Singh

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Judgment of Allahabad High Court Affirming Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sessions Judge erred in not referring the whole case under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court
  2. 2 Whether the status of the appellant was that of a servant or an agent for purposes of section 409 of the Indian Penal Code
  3. 3 Whether there was a violation of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in charging the appellant with multiple offences arising out of the same transaction

Ratio Decidendi

The Sessions Judge acted in accordance with law by not referring the charge under section 409 to the High Court, as section 307 Cr.P.C. applies only to jury trials. The appellant's status was that of an agent, not a servant, considering his duties as Secretary. There was no violation of procedural provisions regarding joinder of charges, as the offences arose out of the same transaction.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed, conviction and sentence affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed.