Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. Barkya Tiku

Emperor vs Barkya Tiku

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided May 15, 1915
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/331674

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Reference No. 35 of 1915
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bombay Public Conveyances Act (Bom. Act VI of 1863), Sections 2, 9-Conveyance licensed for labour but use a for passengers-Liability.;A person who has licensed his conveyance for labour but uses it as a conveyance for passengers, is guilty of an offence under Section 2 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act, 1863. - ...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Barkya Tiku

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1915Bom49(1); (1915)17BOMLR607; 30Ind.Cas.133

Excerpt

bombay public conveyances act (bom. act vi of 1863), sections 2, 9-conveyance licensed for labour but use a for passengers-liability.;a person who has licensed his conveyance for labour but uses it as a conveyance for passengers, is guilty of an offence under section 2 of the bombay public conveyances act, 1863. - - he is clearly guilty of an offence under section 2. 3. therefore, we cannot agree with the district magistrate who recommends that the conviction be quashed and the accused acquitted.macleod, j.1. this is a reference from the district magistrate of thana in the case of imperator v. barkya tiku bhandari who was convicted by the second class magistrate of bassein on the 3rd of february 1915 and ordered to pay a fine of rs. 2 under section 2 of the bombay public conveyances act (bom. act vi of 1863).2. it appears that the accused had carried passengers in his cart, which was licensed only for labour, from virar to agashi. the district magistrate is of opinion that because under section 9 of the bombay public conveyances act the superintendent of police may, in his discretion, suspend or revoke the license if a conveyance is used for passengers when licensed only for labour, the accused cannot be convicted under section 2. but under section 2 no person shall keep or let for hire any public conveyance without having a license in force for the same, and in the case of a license to carry passengers there is to be painted or branded on such part of the conveyance as may be directed a number corresponding with that of the license granted to such conveyance, together, in the case of a land conveyance licensed to carry passengers, with the number of passengers that it is licensed to carry. any person keeping or letting for hire any public conveyance without such a license as aforesaid will be liable, on conviction before a magistrate, to a penalty. the accused in this case was keeping or letting for hire a public conveyance for carrying passengers without the requisite license. he is clearly guilty of an offence under section 2.3. therefore, we cannot agree with the district magistrate who recommends that the conviction be quashed and the accused acquitted.

Full Judgment

Macleod, J.

1. This is a reference from the District Magistrate of Thana in the case of Imperator v. Barkya Tiku Bhandari who was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate of Bassein on the 3rd of February 1915 and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2 under Section 2 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act (Bom. Act VI of 1863).

2. It appears that the accused had carried passengers in his cart, which was licensed only for labour, from Virar to Agashi. The District Magistrate is of opinion that because under Section 9 of the Bombay Public Conveyances Act the Superintendent of Police may, in his discretion, suspend or revoke the license if a conveyance is used for passengers when licensed only for labour, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 2. But under Section 2 no person shall keep or let for hire any public conveyance without having a license in force for the same, and in the case of a license to carry passengers there is to be painted or branded on such part of the conveyance as may be directed a number corresponding with that of the license granted to such conveyance, together, in the case of a land conveyance licensed to carry passengers, with the number of passengers that it is licensed to carry. Any person keeping or letting for hire any public conveyance without such a license as aforesaid will be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a penalty. The accused in this case was keeping or letting for hire a public conveyance for carrying passengers without the requisite license. He is clearly guilty of an offence under Section 2.

3. Therefore, we cannot agree with the District Magistrate who recommends that the conviction be quashed and the accused acquitted.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial