Mumbai Court November 1931 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. Mathurdas Purshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR299; 137Ind.Cas.132
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused, who is twenty years of age, was convicted by the City Magistrate, First Class, Bandra, of an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused admitted three previous convictions. The learned Magistrate says on the question of sentence :-Having regard to his youth and caste on the one hand and to the previous convictions on the other hand I sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for fifteen months to be undergone in the Dharwar Juvenile Jail. Now, the learned Magistrate in imposing that sentence bad obviously not taken the trouble to look at the Borstal Act Under Section 6 of the Borstal Act when an offender is found guilty of an offence for which he is liable to be sentenced to transportation or imprisonment and certain conditions are satisfied, it shall then be lawful for the Court to pass in lieu of a sentence of transportation or imprisonment an order for the detention of the offender in aBorstal School for such term...
Emperor Vs. Baloo Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR275; 137Ind.Cas.8
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition by the Government of Bombay asking us in revision to set aside the order of the Honorary Presidency Magistrates pronounced on May 6, 1931. The accused was charged with committing certain offences under the Bombay Public Conveyances Act (Bom. VII of 1920), and the conclusion at which the learned Magistrates arrived is this, They say:-Accused is charged under the Public Conveyances Act. The railway police have no powers under the Act to conduct the investigation. The accused is released under Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I do not know exactly what was in the minds of the learned Magistrates. In the first place, I should say that even if the railway police had not the powers of the ordinary police and were to be regarded as private individuals, still it is well settled that any individual who has reason to think that an offence has been committed is entitled to set the law in motion, and if the evidence before the learned Magist...
Emperor Vs. Lakha Amra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom201; (1932)34BOMLR301; 137Ind.Cas.146
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay. It appears that the accused were charged with offences under Section 457 and 330 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, with theft, and they were also charged in addition or in the alternative with offences under Section 411, that is to say, with receiving stolen property. The learned Sessions Judge of Kaira held that there was not sufficient evidence upon which to convict them of theft. But it would appear from the evidence-and the assessors were all satisfied-that in fact the accused were all in possession of property which had been stolen on the particular occasion on which it was alleged that they had stolen it. They were in possession of the stolen property but there was no evidence that they themselves had stolen it. The learned Judge refused to record any finding under Section 411, because he held that the accused could not be tried jointy under that section. He refers to two cases, Emperor v. Jethalal ...
Mulji Haridas Vs. Sir Ibrahim Rahimtulla, Kt.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom166; (1932)34BOMLR231; 137Ind.Cas.379
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an action of a somewhat unusual character. It appears that the plaintiff is a merchant doing business in iron and steel imported from England and the Continent, and under Act III of 1927 certain duties were made leviable on such steel imported into India for a period of seven years, and under the Act there is power for the Governor General on further inquiry to increase the amount of the duties. It is now alleged by the plaintiff that a Bill has been introduced into the Legislative Assembly at Delhi and is about to be further discussed, which will have the effect of further increasing the duties upon the plaintiff's imported steel. That Bill contains a declaration under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, XVI of 1031, making the increased duties immediately payable, but under such Act, if the Bill does not ultimately pass into law, there will have to be a refund of the duties paid under it.2. Now, the plaintiff's contention is that inasmuch as th...
Emperor Vs. Rustam Cursetji Lam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR267; 136Ind.Cas.868
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two applications in revision against two convictions passed by the Presidency Magistrate, fourth Court. In application No. 243 Dr. Lam was charged with keeping a common gaming house and thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 4(a) of Bombay Act IV of 1887, and in the other case four persons who were in Dr. Lam's premises were charged with being found in a common gaming house and thereby committing offences under Section 5 of the saidAct.2. Now the evidence is of two kinds. In the first place there is the evidence of a witness named Chand Gulab who says that he was given by the police a marked five rupee note and five marked rupee coins and that he went with that money to Dr. Lam's room and there made certain bets and that Dr. Lam took the marked money for the purposes of the bets, The learned Magistrate says that Chand Gulab is a reliable witness, and he accepts his story. But the difficulty I have in accepting the story is that as so...
Shri Sharada Peeth Math Vs. Shri Rajrajeshvarashram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1931
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR440
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was entitled on behalf of the Sharada Peeth, Math at Dwarka to obtain and retain possession of the property which was in custodia legis and held by the administrator appointed under Regulation VIII of 1827, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from recovering possession of the property and from asserting their claim as Acharya of the Sharada Peeth Math,2. It is common ground that the last holder of the Sharada Peeth Math of Dwarka was Madhav Tirtha, who died at Dakore on September 27, 1916, without designating his successor. On his death the Collector took possession of the property and handed it over to the District Judge under Regulation VIII of 1827. The District Judge under Section 10 of Regulation VIII of 1827 issued a proclamation under Appendix C, Exhibit 86, on October 17, 1916. In pursuance of the proclamation three claimants appeared: (1) defendant No. 1, (2) Shantyanand as the nominee...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›