Emperor Vs. Arjun Ambo Kathodi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 109, 123 and 397-penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 379-concurrent sentences -consecutive sentences.;the accused was proceeded against under section 109 of the criminal procedure code, and sentenced under section 123 of the code to rigorous imprisonment for nine months, in default of security for good behaviour, on the 6th july 1909. he was then tried for an offence of theft committed by him in november 1908, and was, on the 17th august 1909, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months : the second sentence was directed to take effect on the expiry of the first sentence.;that the two sentences could not run consecutively, but must run concurrently. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. 1. we must accept the district magistrate's view in this reference, which is in accordance with the ruling this court in queen empress v. tulshya bahiru (1898) unr. cr. c. 970, with v. emperor v. muthttkomaran ilr (1903) 27 mad. 525 and joghi kannigan v. emperor ilr (1903) mad. 525.2. we must, therefore, make the sentences concurrent in the present case. record and proceeding to be returned with the order.