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. Vyankatsing Sambhusing

Emperor vs Vyankatsing Sambhusing

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Aug 14, 1907
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/340835

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. 27 of 1907
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 307, 269 (3)-Secsions Judge-Trial by jury-Charges under Sections 304 and 305 of Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860)-Verdict of jury on the minor charge-Disagreement between judge and jury-Reference to High Court.;The accused were tried by the Judge with, jury on charges und...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Vyankatsing Sambhusing

Legal References

Reported In
(1907)9BOMLR1057

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 307, 269 (3)-secsions judge-trial by jury-charges under sections 304 and 305 of penal code (act xlv of 1860)-verdict of jury on the minor charge-disagreement between judge and jury-reference to high court.;the accused were tried by the judge with, jury on charges under sections 304 and 325, of the indian penal code. the jury found the accused guilty with respect to the charge under section 325 : with this verdict the judge disagreed and he referred the case to the high court under section 307 of the criminal procedure code, 1898:-;that the case should be sent back to the judge who tried it, with a direction that he should pass orders and dispose of it as in a case tried by him with the aid of assessors on the minor charges against the accused, under section 325. - - the court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the sessions judge that the charge was really a single one, because as a fact there were two distinct charges to each of which the accused were called on to plead and that brings the case clearly within the provisions of clause 3 of section 269, criminal procedure code.order1. assuming without deciding that this reference lies, having regard to clause 3 of section 269 of the code of criminal procedure, the court thinks that the case should be sent back to the judge who tried it, with a direction that he should pass orders and dispose of it as in a case tried by him with the aid of assessors on the minor charges against the accused under section 325 of the indian penal code. this is the course suggested by accused's counsel and agreed to by the government pleader. the court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the sessions judge that the charge was really a single one, because as a fact there were two distinct charges to each of which the accused were called on to plead and that brings the case clearly within the provisions of clause 3 of section 269, criminal procedure code.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Assuming without deciding that this reference lies, having regard to Clause 3 of Section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court thinks that the case should be sent back to the Judge who tried it, with a direction that he should pass orders and dispose of it as in a case tried by him with the aid of assessors on the minor charges against the accused under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. This is the course suggested by accused's counsel and agreed to by the Government Pleader. The Court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the Sessions Judge that the charge was really a single one, because as a fact there were two distinct charges to each of which the accused were called on to plead and that brings the case clearly within the provisions of Clause 3 of Section 269, Criminal Procedure Code.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial