Mumbai Court September 1926 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. Laxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom38
Shah, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Poona in respect of an order made by the First Class Magistrate of Poona discharging the accused on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to try the case. It may be mentioned that on this reference a rule was issued to the accused. The Government Pleader has appeared in support of the reference, and we have heard him. We have considered the point arising on the facts which are briefly these:The case for the prosecution was that the accused hired a cycle at Poona on June 11, 1925, for six hours, but, instead of returning the same in accordance with his written contract, he took it out to Yeola, in the Nasik District, and deposited it with one Damu Namdeo Sali as a security for an advance of Rs. 6. On these allegations the accused was charged with criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.2. The learned Magistrate held that he had no jurisdiction and he gave the following reasons:It is cl...
Palmerino Vs. Mrs. Palmerino
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom46
Shah, J.1. This is a very unusual case An order was made by the Special First Glass Magistrate, Poona Cantonment, on 12th April 1924, on the application of the wife for her maintenance and the maintenance of her child against her husband. At that time apparently there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact of the marriage. The learned Magistrate made an order directing the present petitioner to pay Rs. 150 per mensem for the maintenance of the wife and the child. This order was apparently acquiesced in without objection by the husband for considerable length of time. The present petition was made in July last for setting aside that order. The petition is based on two grounds, first that the order directing Rs. 150 to be paid per month is in excess of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 488, Criminal P.C. ; and. secondly that the petitioner has subsequently found that, before the marriage between him and his wife, which took place on 8th February 1921, the presen...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›