Mumbai Court February 1927 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. Batubai Ganeshu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR490
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for enhancing the sentence passed on the two accused, who have been convicted under Sections 373 and 114, Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 has been sentenced to eight months' rigorous imprisonment and accused No. 1 to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are, that the girl Kesharbai was married to one Rasila Sukhiaji in Kashmir. She stayed for some time with her brother-in-law Kasu, and then accused No. 2, who is a cousin of Rasila and Kasu, brought her to Bombay in June 1925 to the brothel of accused No. 1, who paid her railway fare.3. Kesharbai got tired of the life in the brothel, and on or about March 29, 1926, she left the brothel in company of a visitor at 4 A.M. Accused No. 1 then filed a complaint to the effect that Kesharbai had stolen her ornaments and cash and had disappeared from the house.4. Kesharbai then surrendered herself to the Police, who on investigation found that there was no truth in the complaint of' accus...
Lingangowda Vs. Basangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR848
Phillimore, J.1. Their Lordships have listened carefully to the arguments of counsel for the appellants, but they are of opinion that on the first point, which, decided in the way in which they propose to decide it, determines the appeal, the judgment of the High Court was right. Their Lordships adopt their reasons. It was necessary for a decision in the previous suit that the Judge should consider what was the position in the family of the fourth and fifth defendants, now the present respondents, and he came to a very clear decision on the evidence, that not only were they members of the joint family, but that they were in possession of some of the joint family property. It seems, therefore, to be beyond doubt that the question has been decided in previous litigation between the parties. That is the material part of the decision of the High Court, except with regard to one point which was urged by counsel for the appellant, and to which their Lordships have given further consideration...
Emperor Vs. Butubai Ganeshu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1927
Reported in: 101Ind.Cas.593
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for enhancing the sentence passed on the two accused, who have been convicted under Sections 373 and 114, Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 1 has been sentenced to eight months' rigorous imprisonment and accused No. 1 to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are, that the girl Kesharbai was married to one Rasila Sukhiaji in Kashmir. She stayed for some time with her brother-in-law Kasu, and then accused No. 2, who is a cousin of Rasila and Kasu, brought her to Bombay in June 1925 to the brothel of accused No. 1, who paid her railway fare.3. Kesharbai got tired of the life in the brothel, and on or about March 29, 1926, she left the brothel in company of a visitor at 4 a.m. Accused No. 1 then filed a complaint to the effect that Kesharbai had stolen her ornaments and cash and had disappeared from the house.4. Kesharbai then surrendered herself to the Police, who, on investigation found that there was no truth in the complaint of accus...
Emperor Vs. Batubai Ganeshu and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom666
Patkar, J.1. This is an application for enhancing the sentence passed on the two accused, who have been convicted under Sections373 and 114, I.P.C. Accused 1 has been sentenced to eight months' rigorous imprisonment and accused 2 to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts of the case are, that the girl Kesharbai was married to one Rasila Sukhiaji in Kasmir. She stayed for some time with her brother-in-law Kasu, and then accused 2, who is a cousin of Rasila and Kasu, brought her to Bombay in June 1925 to the brothel of, accused 1, who paid her railway fare.3. Kesharbai got tired of the life in the brothel, and on or about 29th March 1926, she left the brothel in company of a visitor at 4 a.m. Accused 1 then filed a complaint to the effect that Kesharbai had stolen her ornaments and cash and had disappeared from the house.4. Kesharbai then surrendered herself to the police,, who on investigation found that there was no truth in the complaint of accused 1, and Ascertaining that Kesh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›