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.

Joseph Simon Govre Vs. the State

Joseph Simon Govre vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Mar 20, 1951
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/340094

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 1951
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Bombay Prohibition Act (Bom. XXV of 1949), Sections 66(b), 85(2), 92 - Bombay Probation of Offenders Act (Bom. XIX of 1938), Sections 4, 5--Whether person convicted of offences other than of consuming liquor can get benefit of Act XIX of 1938.;Action can be taken under Section 4 and 5 of the Bombay Probation of Offe...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Bombay Probation of Offenders Act, 1938 - Sections 4 and 5; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Joseph Simon Govre

Advocate S.H. Sheth, Adv.

Respondent

The State

Advocate H.M. Choksi, Government Pleader

Legal References

Acts
Bombay Probation of Offenders Act, 1938 - Sections 4 and 5; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
Reported In
AIR1951Bom416; (1951)53BOMLR680; ILR1951Bom700

Excerpt

bombay prohibition act (bom. xxv of 1949), sections 66(b), 85(2), 92 - bombay probation of offenders act (bom. xix of 1938), sections 4, 5--whether person convicted of offences other than of consuming liquor can get benefit of act xix of 1938.;action can be taken under section 4 and 5 of the bombay probation of offenders act, 1938, even in the case of offences, other than that of consuming liquor, punishable under the bombay prohibition act, 1949. - - 3. on merits we are satisfied that the conviction of the accused is correct. section 92 of the bombay prohibition actseems to contemplate that only persons, who havebeen convicted of the offence of consuming liquor,should be released on probation of good conduct.chainani, j.1. in this case the accused has been convicted under section 66(b) and section 85(2) of the bombay prohibition act and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 500 under section 66(b) and one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 100 under section 85(2) of the act. 2. the charge against the accused was that on september 2, 1950, at about 11-80 p. m. he went near the house of witness sutari and abused him under the influence of drink. 3. on merits we are satisfied that the conviction of the accused is correct. it has, however, been urged on his behalf that as this is the firstoffence committed by the accused, he should begiven the benefit of the probation of offendersact. section 92 of the bombay prohibition actseems to contemplate that only persons, who havebeen convicted of the offence of consuming liquor,should be released on probation of good conduct.but sections 4 and 5 of the probation of offenders actspecifically state that the provisions of these sections are to apply, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any enactment for the time beingin force. there is no provision in the bombayprohibition act, which provides that the probation of offenders act should not be used in thecase of offences falling under the bombay prohibition act. we are, therefore, of the opinion thataction can be taken under sections 4 and 5 of the bombay probation of offenders act even in the caseof offences, other than that of consuming liquor,punishable under the bombay prohibition act.

Full Judgment

Chainani, J.

1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 66(b) and Section 85(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 66(b) and one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 85(2) of the Act.

2. The charge against the accused was that on September 2, 1950, at about 11-80 p. m. he went near the house of witness Sutari and abused him under the influence of drink.

3. On merits we are satisfied that the conviction of the accused is correct. It has, however, been urged on his behalf that as this is the firstoffence committed by the accused, he should begiven the benefit of the Probation of OffendersAct. Section 92 of the Bombay Prohibition Actseems to contemplate that only persons, who havebeen convicted of the offence of consuming liquor,should be released on probation of good conduct.But Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Actspecifically state that the provisions of these sections are to apply, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any enactment for the time beingin force. There is no provision in the BombayProhibition Act, which provides that the Probation of Offenders Act should not be used in thecase of offences falling under the Bombay Prohibition Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion thataction can be taken under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Probation of Offenders Act even in the caseof offences, other than that of consuming liquor,punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial