Mumbai Court August 1912 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Chimanlal Jagjivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR876; 17Ind.Cas.534
Batchelor, J.1. In this case the accused was charged under Section 43 of the Bombay Abkari Act (Bom. Act V of 1878), with importing an intoxicating drug into the Presidency of Bombay. The fact proved is that the accused brought twenty tolas of bhang from Wadhwan Civil Station to Viramgam. Viramgam admittedly is British territory. It is further admitted that the importation of twenty tolas of bhang into British territory from foreign territory would be punishable under Section 43.2. The only question which arises, therefore, is whether Wadhwan Civil Station is within the Presidency of Bombay or hot. The Abkari Act extends to the whole of the Presidency of Bombay (see Section I); and by the Bombay General Clauses Act (Bom. Act I of 1904) ' Presidency of Bombay ' means the territories within British India for the time being under the administration of the Governor of Bombay in Council-' British India ' is by the same Act defined to mean all territories and places within His Majesty's Domi...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Janardan Chaphekar Vs. Mahadu Pandu Turmalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR947; 17Ind.Cas.676
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to set right an order by the Collector by which, upon the mere statement of the defendant before him, he took upon himself to reverse the decree of the Mamlatdar.2. It has been objected on behalf of the opponent that this Court has no power under its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Collector so made.3. The Mamlatdar's Courts Act, however, expressly constitutes the Collector (taking proceedings under that Act) a Court, and it has been ruled in The Collector of Thana v. Bhaskar Mahadev Sheth ILR (1884) 8 Bom. 264 that the Collector when exercising judicial functions is subject to the superintendence and control of the High Court.4. Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code authorizes the High Court to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and there can, we think, be no doubt that the Collector as a Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Intya Salabatkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR897; 17Ind.Cas.714
Batchelor, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Khandesh in the following circumstances. Five persons were originally sent up for trial before the First Class Magistrate, West Khandesh, on a charge of dacoity under Section 397, Indian Penal Code. At the beginning of the Magisterial inquiry pardon was granted to one of the accused, named Intya, whom we will hereafter refer to as the ' approver ;' and the case proceeded against the remaining four accused. The case, however, never went beyond the Magistrate's Court, for in that Court the approver, examined as a witness, denied all knowledge of the alleged dacoity, and in the absence of material evidence against the four accused, they were discharged by the Magistrate under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After that was done, the pardon which had been tendered to the approver was withdrawn. The case against him in regard to the dacoity was proceeded with under Section 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Budhankhan Inayatkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR893; 17Ind.Cas.537
Batchelor, J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Thana who found himself unable to accept the verdict of the Jury. The accused Budhankhan walad Mithekhan alias Nathu Inayatkhan was committed for trial on charges under Sections 414 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code. On the motion of the Public Prosecutor a charge under Section 411 was added in the Court of Session. The Jury by a majority acquitted the accused on the charge under Section 411, but by a majority of 4 to 1 they found him guilty under Section 414. It is because the Assistant Sessions Judge is unable to agree with the Jury that the charge under Section 414 is proved that this reference has been made. We do not understand the Assistant Sessions Judge to express any real dissent from the view which the Jury took of the effect of the evidence as to the matters of fact. We understand his reference to show that he doubted whether on the facts as stated by the prosecution witnesses a conviction can le...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Intya Salabat Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom146
Batchelor, J.1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Khandesh in the following circumstances. Five persons were originally sent up for trial before the First Class Magistrate, West Khandesh, on a charge of dacoity under Section 397, Indian Penal Code. At the beginning of the Magisterial inquiry pardon was granted to one of the accused, named Intya, whom we will hereafter refer to as the 'approver'; and the case proceeded against the remaining four accused. The case, however, never went beyond the Magistrate's Court, for in that Court the approver, examined as a witness, denied all knowledge of the alleged dacoity, and in the absence of material evidence against the four accused, they were discharged by the Magistrate under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After that was done, the pardon which had been tendered to the approver was withdrawn. The case against him in regard to the dacoity was proceeded with under Section 339 of the Criminal Procedure Code, ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Rahiman Momin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR891; 17Ind.Cas.530
Batchelor, J.1. We think that the procedure by which this matter has ultimately found its way to this Court is open to objection. The accused was placed before the Second Class Magistrate on an accusation that he, being a subject of the Aundh State, had within the limits of that State dishonestly received certain property which had been stolen in British India. Those circumstances, no doubt, raise a point of law as to whether the accused would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the British Court; and that is a question which could only be decided by a Tribunal placed in full possession of all the facts bearing upon that question. The Second Class Magistrate, however, seeing this legal question looming before him, instead of completing his enquiry, getting upon the record all the evidence that was available and then deciding the point of law, right or wrong, for himself, proceeded to address an official communication to the District Magistrate seeking his advice in the matter. The Distr...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ramjibhai Waghjibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR889; 17Ind.Cas.540
1. There is no appearance in this case for the District Magistrate though notice has been served upon him. In these circumstances we have not had the advantage of arguments in support of the Sub divisional Magistrate's proceedings. But upon the best consideration we can give to the matter, we take the same view as the learned Sessions Judge has expressed in his reference; and for the reasons there appearing we hold that the warrant, proclamation and attachment in this case were illegal. We, therefore, set them aside, and direct the attachment to be raised....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ganesh Narayan Dikshit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR972; 17Ind.Cas.705
Batchelor, J.1. The five appellants before us, hereinafter called the accused, were jointly tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Sholapur, and were convicted by that Judge in agreement with both assessors. At the material times to which the charges relate the accused held the following characters : The first accused was the City Sub-Inspector of Police at Sholapur, the second accused was a Police Jamadar and by caste a Kaikadi, the third accused was a Police Havaldar or Head Constable, the fourth accused was a money-lender of Sholapur, the fifth accused was the Police Patil of the village Patkul in the Madha Taluka of the Sholapur District.2. The accused No. 1 has been convicted of the offences: (a) of fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of an offence punishable with imprisonment for seven years; (b) of wrongful confinement; (c) of causing criminal proceedings to be instituted against a person without just or lawful ground; (d) of giving false evidence wi...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamadgaus Dadasaheb and Dilawarkha Sikandarkha Vs. Rajbax Roshanbax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR266; 19Ind.Cas.558
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The only two points argued in this appeal are limitation and rest judicata.2. The property in suit consists of lands at Malapur and Dharwar which the plaintiff claims by right of succession to his deceased father and Guru Roshan who was a Fakir of the Makan of Malapur and held also the office of Surguro. The lands in suit had been alienated by the previous holder of the office of Surguro in favour of the ancestors of defendant 1. The last alienation was made by Roshan in 1891 by way of lease in favour of defendant 1st father for a term of seventy-five years in satisfaction of an old debt of Rs. 7000. The plaintiff's case is that Roshan had no power to alienate the property beyond his life-time and he claims to recover possession on the footing that since Roshan's death the lease is no longer binding.3. It is admitted that the property descends to the disciple of each holder of the office of Surguro in succession, and that according to custom the son of the last...
Tag this Judgment!Malgauda Paragowda Patil Vs. Babaji Dattu Bhakare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1121; 17Ind.Cas.746
Rao, J.1. But issue No. 1 as to whether the plaintiffs can sue is yet to be tried. The Courts below have refrained from finding on it.Batchelor, J.2. The suit giving rise to tins appeal was instituted by the present appellants for a declaration that the adoption of the 1st defendant Babaji by the 2nd defendant, the widow of one Kalagauda, was null and void. The appellants claimed as nephews to be the reversionary heirs of Kalagauda Kalagauda died on the 13th March 1885, having made a will dated the 9th of March of that year3. The only question between the parties is whether the lower Courts are right in holding that under the terms of that will there was no implied prohibition barring the widow from adopting the first defendant, who is the son of one of the testator s daughters. Both the Courts below appear to admit that there is to be collected from the will an implied prohibition of one sort or another, but they are of opinion that in the special circumstances disclosed in this case ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »