Reg. Vs. Tukaya BIn Tamana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/328873
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided OnSep-14-1875
JudgeMichael Westropp, C.J., ;Kemball, ;West and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.
Reported in(1877)ILR1Bom214
AppellantReg.
RespondentTukaya BIn Tamana
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), sections 220, 314, and 454 - penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 457 and 380--simultaneous conviction of several offences---sentence. - 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. 5. there should either be one sentence for both offences in a case of conviction of house-breaking by night in order to commit theft, and theft, not exceeding that which may be given by the law for the graver offence, or separate sentences for each offence, provided that in the aggregate the punishment awarded does not exceed that which may be given for the graver offence.
Judgment:

5. There should either be one sentence for both offences in a case of conviction of house-breaking by night in order to commit theft, and theft, not exceeding that which may be given by the law for the graver offence, or separate sentences for each offence, provided that in the aggregate the punishment awarded does not exceed that which may be given for the graver offence.