Scribd
Upload
59 views3 pages

Appeal Under CRPC

The document is an appeal filed in the Court of Sessions Judge in Bangalore City by Perumal challenging his conviction and sentence by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Perumal was convicted of theft under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and a fine. The appeal argues that the magistrate committed multiple errors in the trial, including failing to provide a legal aid option, time to prepare a defense, consider applying Section 360 of CrPC which allows admonishment for a first time offender, and communicate in Tamil as the appellant's native language. The appeal requests that the Sessions Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquit Perumal of the charges, and release him from custody.

Uploaded by

Meghana Muddurangappa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
59 views3 pages

Appeal Under CRPC

The document is an appeal filed in the Court of Sessions Judge in Bangalore City by Perumal challenging his conviction and sentence by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Perumal was convicted of theft under Section 380 of IPC and sentenced to 1 year imprisonment and a fine. The appeal argues that the magistrate committed multiple errors in the trial, including failing to provide a legal aid option, time to prepare a defense, consider applying Section 360 of CrPC which allows admonishment for a first time offender, and communicate in Tamil as the appellant's native language. The appeal requests that the Sessions Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquit Perumal of the charges, and release him from custody.

Uploaded by

Meghana Muddurangappa
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

In the Court of Sessions Judge, Bangalore City

Crl. Appeal No. ……. /2015

Perumal s/o Annalmai


resident of Siddhapuram…. Appellant/ Accused

vs.

State of Karnataka
represented by Siddhapuram
Police, Bangalore Respondent/Complainant

Under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The Appellant above named submits as follows:-

The addresses of the parties are as stated in the cause title above.

1. Respondent filed a charge-sheet against the Appellant on <date> in the


court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City alleging that
appellant has committed a theft of silver plate weighing about 1 kg
valuing Rs. Thirty Thousand belonging to Rajaram resident of Jayanagar.
Appellant was summoned to appear before the court. On 30.03.2015
when accused appeared before the court, the copies of the charge-sheet
was served on him, charges were framed and read over to the appellant in
Kannada language. Court stated that the accused has pleaded guilty and
convicted him for the offence of Section 380 of IPC and sentenced him
for the one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100 and in default
of payment of fine a further rigorous imprisonment for the period of 15
days. The certified copies of the judgment is attached herewith
(Annexure I)

2. Aggrieved by the sentence of the learned Judge in C.C. No. 1525/2014,


the appellant has preferred appeal in this court challenging the conviction
and sentence on the following grounds:-

i. The learned magistrate committed the error in not questioning the


appellant for making a provision for the legal aid.

ii. The learned Magistrate committed error by not providing any time
to go through the charge-sheet and other documents and prepare
for his defence.

iii. The learned Magistrate failed to consider that he has a duty to hear
the appellant before framing charge.

iv. The learned Magistrate Failed to take notice of the accused being a
tamilian to question him in Tamil (his own language), whether he
pleads guilty or claims to be tried.

v. The learned magistrate recorded the answer on the question of


pleads guilty or claims to be tried as “yes”, which is glaring
mistake.

vi. The learned magistrate ought to have made communication in


Tamil and considered the response of the appellant as an
affirmative for the trial and not for pleading guilty.

vii. The learned Magistrate failed to consider the application of Section


360 of Cr.P.C. to the appellant, inspite of knowing that it is his first
offence and

viii. The learned Magistrate failed to state reasons regarding why the
benefit of Section 360 of Cr.P.C is not provided to the appellant.

ix. The learned Magistrate failed to hear the appellant on the question
of sentence before passing the sentence on appellant.
For all the reasons stated above the Appellant therefore prays that this court
may be pleased to set aside the Judgment of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in
C.C. No. ……../2015 pronounced on <date> under Section 380 of IPC and
acquit appellant for the above said offence and release him from the custody.

Advocate for the Appellant

Place:

Date:

You might also like