# The Sessions Judges should pay personal attention to the compliance of rule 135

- **Citation:** C.L. No. 63
- **Court:** Allahabad High Court
- **Decided:** 1941-03-08
- **Case number:** C.L. No. 63
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-sessions-judges-should-pay-personal-attention-to-the-compliance-of-rule-135-163576
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

342
C.L. No. 63 dated 16th October, 1962
The Sessions Judges should pay personal attention to the compliance of rule 135
General Rule (Criminal), the intention of which is that, all such material exhibits which
are likely to be of assistance in disposal of an appeal should be submitted to the Court in
consultation with the counsel for the parties.
When there is any dispute between the prosecution and the defence as to any fact
or any inference from facts in the decision of which an inspection of the material exhibit
would be helpful, it should invariably be sent to the Court. For example, where injuries
have been caused by a sharp or pointed weapon and there is dispute as to whether the
weapon exhibited could have caused the particular injuries the weapon should be sent. In
case of gunshot injuries, the dispute as to whether the injuries could have been caused
with the particular gun is not so frequent. Similarly, bloodstained clothes of the victim
will normally not be of help to the Court except in a case where the number or nature of
holes in clothing may give any indication as to the manner of assault suggested by the
prosecution. In the former case the trial Judge would be justified in not sending the
clothes but in the latter case they should properly be submitted.
The trial Judge would be well advised to ask the counsel for the parties to note
their opinion on the margin of the order sheet or himself give the detailed opinion in his
order sheet on the date the arguments are heard.
C.L. No. 13/VII-b-53 dated 24th January, 1969
Through this C.L. the attention of the District Judges is invited to G.O. No. 220J/XXII-671-1940, dated March 8, 1941, requiring the Chemical Examiner to deal with
exhibits sent to him for examination promptly so that murder cases may be decided
expeditiously and also to G.O. No. 3503/VI-2439-1939, dated November 27, 1939,
requiring the Sessions Judges to send a copy of the judgment for information to the
Chemical Examiner in all cases in which he has been consulted.
 40.
RELEASE ON PROBATION
C.L. No. 40/VIIC-8/Admn. (D) dated 21st May, 1987
Although it is within the judicial discretion of the court to release or not to release an
offender on probation of good conduct, it would be proper to extend the application of
these provisions to more cases in areas where it is found that the persons released on
probation, whether or not under the supervision of the probation officer do not revert to
crimes. Where the applications of the provisions of the above Act have salutary effect,
there can be no objection to release of more persons on probation. If, however, it is found
that persons released on probation have abused it by reverting to crimes during or after
the period of probation, or that the supervision over such persons is slack, the trial courts
can become strict while giving the benefit of the provisions of this Act to the offenders.
The aim of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is to stop an offender from
becoming hardened criminal and in order to achieve this objective, the implementation of
the Act can be extended to more cases where after considering the report of the probation
officer and having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the
offence and the character of the offender it is found necessary.
343
41.
SENTENCES AND PUNISHMENTS
(i)
In cases of dacoity
C.L. No. 24/VIIh-22 and 25/VIIh-22 dated 17th March, 1951
Sessions Judges sometimes convict accused persons under section 395, read with
section 397 of the Indian Penal Code although there is no evidence that such persons had,
at the time of committing the dacoity, used any deadly weapon or caused grievous hurt to
any person or attempted to cause death or grievous hurt to any person. The language of
section 397 is quite clear and the provisions of that section should be carefully borne in
mind before applying that section to the case of an accused person found guilty of the
offence of robbery or dacoity.
C.L. No. 42/IV-h-22 dated 4th May, 1956
Inadequate sentences should on no account be passed in dacoity and other allied
cases. The attention of all Session Judges is drawn to the observation made, in this
connection, by their Lordships Hon'ble Mr. Justice James and Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Mukerjee in their judgment in Criminal Appeal no. 1150 of 1951, Om Prakash and others
versus State (copy forwarded with C.L.).
C.L. No. 52 dated 19th June, 1956
The Court had occasion to see that in a sessions trial where the accused were
found guilty of four dacoities under section 395, Indian Penal Code the sentences of
seven years' imprisonment passed in respect of each of them were ordered to run
concurrently.
Normally sentences for two or more offences should be consecutive and should
not be made concurrent as a matter of course or without good reasons. It is also to be
noted that the fact that the offences are committed in the course of one and the same
transaction does not mean that the sentences for them should be concurrent or that the
accused should not suffer separately for each offence. In this connection, the attention of
all Sessions Judges and Magistrates is also drawn to the case State versus Khuda Bux,
1952 A.L.J. (p. 39).
(ii)
Consecutive or concurrent
G.L. No.4/VII-b-82-51 dated 18th April, 1951
The letter invites attention to the following observations contained in a judgment
of the High Court in a Criminal Revision.
―I find that magistrates invariably make the several sentences concurrent without
exercising any discretion in the matter. It is laid down in section 35 (new section 31) of
the Code, that one sentence of imprisonment will commence after the expiration of other
sentence of imprisonment unless the court directs that such sentences shall run
concurrently. Obviously, the normal rule is that the sentences should be consecutive and
they may be made to run concurrently only if there is some reason. Whether the
sentences should run consecutively or concurrently is left to the discretion of the court,
but the court must exercise its discretion judicially. It must not exercise it arbitrarily and