Reg. Vs. Lakhya Govind and anr. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/327645 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Mumbai |
| Decided On | Nov-18-1875 |
| Judge | West and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ. |
| Reported in | (1877)ILR1Bom50 |
| Appellant | Reg. |
| Respondent | Lakhya Govind and anr. |
Excerpt:
.....procedure, act x of 1872, section 67 - jurisdiction--dacoity in the gayakwad's territory--trial in british territory. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large..........in the process of taking away the property might, in the legal sense as they would have the same legal character, have coalesced with the first and principal one so as to give jurisdiction under section 67 of the code of criminal procedure. but we think the conviction may be altered to one of retaining stolen property known to have been obtained by dacoity (indian penal code, section 412), and the sentences upheld. the retaining is included in the more comprehensive charge viewed as an abstract accusation of an act attended with a certain intent or consciousness, and the conception of dacoity being independent of the place where it was committed suffices to cover what is embraced within it, though the latter was an act done in british territory. the retaining was in british territory:.....
Judgment:1. We do not think the conviction of dacoity can be sustained. That was a substantive offence completed as soon as perpetrated at Velanpor, although, had Velanpor been in British territory, the subsequent acts in the process of taking away the property might, in the legal sense as they would have the same legal character, have coalesced with the first and principal one so as to give jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But we think the conviction may be altered to one of retaining stolen property known to have been obtained by dacoity (Indian Penal Code, Section 412), and the sentences upheld. The retaining is included in the more comprehensive charge viewed as an abstract accusation of an act attended with a certain intent or consciousness, and the conception of dacoity being independent of the place where it was committed suffices to cover what is embraced within it, though the latter was an act done in British territory. The retaining was in British territory: its legal character depended on circumstances the definition of which does not involve a territorial term, though on a question of the liability of any particular person under a combination of them, the question of place would for jurisdictional purposes be an essential one.
2. We accordingly alter the conviction in the case of each prisoner to one under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code without disturbing the sentences.