Mumbai Court January 1907 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Emperor Vs. Shahukha Mahibukha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR164
Batty, J.1. We do not think that this is a case in which we can interfere. It comes before us in revision, and. in revision it is not usual for us to appreciate evidence. It is suggested that some of the Magistrate's findings are irrelevant for the purposes of Section 110 and we are unable to say that this is not so. But there is a residuum which falls under Clauses (b) and (f) of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate found that the accused was by general repute a habitual offender committing mischief and that he protected thieves. It was not necessary for the purposes of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, that specific instances should be given. If specific instances had been established, the accused might have been charged with the offences specified. The Magistrate was justified by Section 117 in accepting the evidence of general repute that the accused was an habitual offender. We are specially impressed with the finding that the accused is a desperate and dangero...
Emperor Vs. Umakant Balvant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR222
Batty, J.1. The accused in this case has been convicted of abetting the personation of one Balkrishna as a person holding the office of Kulkarni. But the fact of personation alone, as found by the Magistrate, would be insufficient to justify conviction under Section 170, Indian Penal Code. That section further rcquires that the offender should be shown to have attempted to do or to have done in such assumed character some act under colour of such office. The phrase 'an act under colour of such office,' we think, points to acts which could not have been done without assuming official authority or responsibility and would not connote acts of a ministerial or mechanical character, which might be done without requiring the justification of office in the person doing them. It appears from the evidence that it is customary for certain functions performable by the Kulkarni to be performed by his relatives and that there is no objection to that course, when they involve no exercise of powers v...
Emperor Vs. Abdool Wadood Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR230
Batty, J.1. In this case we have been obliged to await an officialised translation of the pamphlet which forms the subject of the charge, exceptions having been taken to the accuracy of that which accompanied the record. The charge against the accused is one under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, of defamation. The alleged defamatory imputations are contained in a pamphlet which the present appellant admittedly wrote as an answer to certain criticisms written and circulated by the complainant on discourses compiled by a religious teacher designated in the pamphlet as the Khutba.2. As the appellant does not disown the authorship of the defamatory pamphlet, the only question which arises in this appeal is whether the passages cited in the charge, amount to defamation. The main contention of the appellant's counsel is that whatever imputations are made in the passages cited in the charge, fall within the 3rd. 6th and 9th. exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, ...
Emperor Vs. Bhagwandas Kanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR331
Batty, J.1. This case comes before us for review and for the determination of certain points of law, on a certificate by the Advocate General in terms of Section 30 of Act II of 1864 (an Act to provide for the administration of Civil and Criminal Justice at Aden).2. The case was originally tried and decided by Lieut. Mosse, First Class Magistrate, whose decision was confirmed on appeal by the Resident. Aden.3. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the Crown by the Government Pleader-that the enactment above cited (Section 30 of Act II of 1864), relates, only to cases tried in the first instance by the Resident himself-and does not extend to cases which the Resident has only heard on appeal.4. No authority has been cited in support of this position.5. Section 30 evidently relates to eases in which the Resident might under Section 29 reserve points of law for the opinion of this Court. And Section 29 extends in terms to 'any Criminal case' in which 'an order or sentence is passe...
Emperor Vs. Abdool Wadood Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1907
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom293
1. In this case we have been obliged to await an officialised translation of the pamphlet which forms the subject of the charge, exceptions having been taken to the accuracy of that which accompanied the record. The charge against the accused is one under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, of defamation. The alleged defamatory imputations are contained in a pamphlet which the present appellant admittedly wrote as an answer to certain criticisms written and circulated by the complainant on discourses compiled by a religious teacher designated in the pamphlet as the Khutba.2. As the appellant does not disown the authorship of the defamatory pamphlet, the only question which arises in this appeal is whether the passages cited in the charge, amount to defamation. The main contention of the appellant's counsel is that-whatever imputations are made in the passages cited in the charge, fall within the 3rd, 6th and 9th exceptions to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, it is cont...
Emperor Vs. Mahmadkhan Sultankhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR153
Batty, J.1. This case also comes before us on appeal by the remaining nine accused referred to in Criminal Reference No. 81 of 1906 both against the conviction for rioting in the case tried with the aid of Assessors and against the conviction on the charge of murder tried by Jury.2. The Sessions Judge framed the charge of murder himself upon grounds which do not appear to have suggested themselves to the committing Magistrate. It does not appear that he placed before the Jury the special circumstances which in his view would have brought the offence within the definition of murder contained in Section 300, Indian Penal Code. It dues not seem to have been put to the Jury in the charge, whether any of the intentions mentioned in this section were established as against any of the accused and the exceptions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 do not seem to have been explicitly explained to the Jury. The Sessions Judge directed the Jury to find that, if the offence of rioting were established, all the accuse...
Banoo Begum Vs. Mir Aun Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR188
Russell, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the widow of Sirdar Mir Abdul Ali, a detective policeman well-known in Bombay and hereinafter called the Sirdar, The plaintiff was his second wife, ho having had by his first wife, six children of whom a son defendant 1 herein is the only survivor. Defendants 2 and 3 herein are his children by the plaintiff.2. The plaintiff claims under an agreement, which, it is said, was made on the occasion of his second marriage and is Ex. A in the case, afterwards, however, marked by me as A 1, as Ex. A was the affidavit of service on the second defendant.3. The first issue raised is : Whether the Sirdar agreed to pay to the plaintiff 80 000 Ashrufces, that is, 24 lacs of Rupees, as 'Meher' in consideration of their marriage as alleged in one of the plaints. The trial of this issue has taken a very considerable time; but there can be to my mind no question whatever as to that agreement having been proved. The evidence is so overwhelming in favour of it a...
Emperor Vs. Rashid Karmalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR212
Batty, J.1. These two appeals Nos. 150 and 151 wore argued together. The same persona are appellants in both appeals. They were charged with and convicted of having instigated certain persons to give false evidence for the purpose of establishing in a pending civil suit that one Nasur Karmali, a deceased brother of the appellants, had divorced his wife Slerbanoo whose claim to maintenance was in litigation.2. The charges in the case in Appeal. No. 150 against appellant No. 1 Rashid set out that he had given such instigation :-(1) On 14th October 1905 to Mahomed Dhala.(2) On 15th October 1905 to Abbas Ebrahim.3. The charges against appellant No. 2 Issa in the same case were that he had given such instigation.4. On 14th October l905 to Abdul Russul Peera and Mahomad Dhaln.5. On 17th October 1905 to Abbas Ebrahim pages 139 and 141).6. The civil case in connection with which the false evidence in question was solicited was then pending before Mr. Murison.7. Initial objection has been taken...
Keshavlal Hiralal Vs. Mayabhai Premchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR204
Chandavarkar, J.1. We think that this suit must be held to be time-barred having regard to the decision of this Court in Keshav Iiamchandra v. Krishnarao Venkatesh (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 508.2. The learned Advocate-General for the respondents has attempted to distinguish that case from this by relying on the decision of the Privy Council in Skinner v. Orde (1879) L.R. 6 I.A. 156. The observation of the Privy Council on which reliance is placed has reference to a state of facts different from those in the case now before us or to the case of Keshav Ramchandra v. Krishnarao Venkatesh (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 508. As pointed out in the judgment of their Lordships the application there to be allowed to sue as a pauper contained all the materials of a plaint. While the enquiry into the applicant's pauperism was proceeding, he withdrew his prayer to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis and paid the Court-fees leviable as on a plaint. The Privy Council, under those circumstances, held that the app...
Hurmukhrai Amoluckchand Vs. Narotamdass Gordhandass
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR125
Davar, J.1. The plaintiffs arc a firm of merchants who carry on an extensive business in Bombay and in about fifteen other centres of trade in India. They deal in cotton, seed, wheat and other produce, on their own account and act as shroffs and commission agents for a large number of constituents residing both in Bombay and up country. The defendants are the sons of one Gordhandass Raghunathji who during his lifetime carried on business in piece-goods in the name of his father Raghunathji Tarachand. The said Gordhundass Raghunathji was a member of a joint and undivided Hindu family and the piece-goods business, which he was carrying on jointly with his father, was a family business. Besides the piece-goods business, which appears to be the principal business of the family, Gordhundass during his life-time carried on another business in coloured cloth in his own name in partnership with other persons. The family firm of Raghunathji Tarachand was continued after the death of Gordhandass...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›