Mumbai Court May 1925 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Shafi Ahmed Nabi Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1925
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR515
Crump, J.1. [After explaining the relative functions of the judge 1825 anci jury the learned Judge continued his summing up as follows :] Now you may ask upon that what is meant by saying that the guilt of an accused person is proved As to that again, Ahmed varjoa8 cases have been cited for your instruction and various text books have been referred to. But 1 do not think myself, gentlemen, that we could take the matter further than the rule which the legislature baa laid down for our guidance in the Indian Evidence Act. That contains in a short compass what the legislature means by the use of the word 'proved', and I will read to you the definitions of 'proved', 'disproved', and 'not proved,' as contained in B. 3 of that Act. 'A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court (that is yourselves in the present case) either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular c...
Tag this Judgment!Sura Lakshmiah Chetty Vs. Kothandarama Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-22-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1076
John Edge, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated August 15, 1922, of the High Court of Madras, which reversed a decree, dated August 31, 1921, of the same Court made in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, which had dismissed the suit.2. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought in the High Court of Madras on November 19, 1918, by the plaintiff', a minor, by his next friend, against the Official Assignee of Madras and three moneylenders. One of the moneylenders died, and his legal representative was brought on the record as a defendant. The plaintiff is the respondent in this appeal.3. The plaintiff is the son of V.S. Chockalingam Pillai, a Hindu of the Villain caste, by his wife, Lakshmi Animal, who died before the suit was brought. The plaintiff is the sole heir of his late mother, and he claims the property to which the suit relates as her heir. On September 30, 1918, the plaintiff's father, Chocloilingam, was adjudged insolvent by the High Court of Madras und...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Anandrao Gangaram Phanse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom529; (1925)27BOMLR1034
Crump, J.1. It is abundantly clear that the Indore official who recorded this statement (Mr. Mital) was acting under rule 11 of the Indore Extradition Rules. For the purposes of that rule it was necessary for him to ask the accused if he had any explanation to offer on the facts upon which his extradition was sought. That explanation he was bound to record in accordance with the provisions of Section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force in Indore. Mr. Mital did that which the law of Indore enjoined upon him.2. Now, as I understand the matter, Mr. Mital is not a Magistrate for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force in British India. Therefore he was not bound to comply with the provisions of that Code. His failure to do so-assuming there be such failure-cannot by any conceivable process of reasoning render a statement made to him by an accused person inadmissible in evidence. Further, any failure on his part to comply with the requirements of the law of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. P.B. Ponde (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1031
Crump, J.1. The witness Shankar Vaman Chaskar was called yesterday and has given his opinion as to whether the writing on certain documents is the writing of accused No 2. The question has been raised as to the relevancy of this opinion. The point has to be decided in the light of Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. Under that section when the Court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document is written or signed the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed is a relevant fact. It is necessary, therefore, to decide whether the witness is a person acquainted with the handwriting of accused No. 2.2. The evidence of the witness is to the effect that he is a clerk employed in the English branch of the Household Department at Indore, and that all English papers in that office come into his charge for the purpose of being examined and filed. His duties are described by his designation, viz, ' English...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›