Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1917 DIGILAW 424 (CAL)

Aslam Mea v. Emperor

1917-08-24

CHARLES CHITTY, RICHARDSON

body1917
JUDGMENT 1. In this case the opposite party, on whom the Rule was served, does not appear to show cause. In his explanation the Magistrate, before whom the case was tried, states that he does not think that the compromise petition could be accepted at such a late stage, when the judgment was actually being written, but a case may be compromised u/s 345, Criminal Procedure Code, at any time before the sentence is pronounced. We accordingly make the Rule absolute and set aside the conviction and the sentence passed on the petitioners. The fines, if paid will be refunded.