Skip to content

Mumbai Court October 1929 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.

Oct 04 1929

Emperor Vs. Sana Mathur

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Oct-04-1929

Reported in: AIR1930Bom155; (1930)32BOMLR98

Patkar, J.1. In this case two accused were tried on charges under Sections 379, 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, before the First Class Magistrate, Kaira. The learned Magistrate held that there was no direct evidence as to the commission of the offence of theft, but relying on Section 114, ill. (a), of the Indian Evidence Act, convicted the accused under Section 379 and in the alternative under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Section 414, Indian Penal Code, did not, in the opinion of the learned Magistrate, fall within his jurisdiction as the certificate from the Political Agent was not obtained.2. Accused No. 2 appealed to the Sessions Court but accused No. 1 did not file an appeal. On the appeal of the accused No. 2 the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 379, Indian Penal Code, was not made out as there was no direct evidence as to the commission of the offence. With regard to the offence under Section 411, Indian...


Oct 02 1929

In Re: Mahomedalli Mithabhai

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Oct-02-1929

Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1366

Patkar, J.1. In this case one Bai Rahmat and her husband Mahomedalli lived together till 1926. In the year 1927 suits were brought in the civil Court by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights and by the wife for maintenance. The husband failed in his suit, and the wife succeeded in securing an award of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 12 per month, The appeal filed by the husband as a pauper also failed. The husband then applied for being adjudicated an insolvent on June 20, 1928, and was adjudicated an insolvent on February 9, 1929. The present application before the Magistrate was filed on December 22, 1928, under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, The Magistrate, on consideration of the whole evidence, came to the conclusion that the opponent earned at least Rs. 40 to 50 per month and the amount of Rs. 12 decreed by the civil Court was a proper maintenance.2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that as there is a decree of the civil Court in existence which can be ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial