Mumbai Court May 1952 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.
The State Vs. Rambai W/O. Sheomangal Hazari and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1952
Reported in: 1953CriLJ1081
ORDERMangalmurti, J.1. The six applicants in this case have been convicted of rioting, Mst. Rambai and Firtu under Section 148 and the remaining four under Section 147, Penal Code, Each of them has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- or three months' rigorous imprisonment in default.2. The trouble arose over the possession of the field known as Kisansinghwala field. Shardaprasad alleges that he purchased it on 2.11.1946 from the accused Rambai for Rs, 2,000/-. Rambai denies the sale of the field. The learned Magistrate has not given any finding regarding the fact of sale, but has found that the possession of the field was with Rambai and that Shardaprasad was not right in taking the cattle grazing in the field to the cattle pound. The cattle belonged to some of the accused (Kudau, Baiju and others).3. In spite of these findings the learned Magistrate said:However as the story of the cattle grazing in the field is not the story of the accused persons I need not discuss the point furthe...
The State of Bombay Vs. Virkumar Gulabchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1952
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR883
Fazl Ali, J.1. I agree that the acquittal of the respondent should not be disturbed, and I also agree generally with the reasoning of my brother, Rose. The question whether turmeric is 'foodstuff' is not entirely free from difficulty. In one sense, everything which enters into the composition of food so as to make it palatable may be described as 'foodstuff', but that word is commonly used with reference only to those articles which are eaten for their nutritive value and which form the principal ingredients of cooked or uncooked meal, such as wheat, rice, meat, fish, milk, bread, butter, etc. It seems to me desirable that the Act should be amended so as to expressly include within the definition of the some what elastic expression 'foodstuff' turmeric and such other condiments as the Legislature intends to be treated as such for achieving the objects in its view.Bose, J.1. The question in this case is whether turmeric is a 'foodstuff' within the meaning of Clause (3) of the Spices (Fo...
Shamrao V. Parulekar Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1952
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR877
Bose, J.1. This petition and three others, namely, petitions Nos. 147, 155 and 157 of 1952, raise issues regarding the vires and applicability to these eases of Section 3 of the Preventive Detention (Amendment) Act, 1952. This judgment is confined to those points and will govern these eases only in so far as they raise those points. The remaining points which do not touch these issues will be dealt with by another bench. The only exception is a point raised in petition No. 155 of 1952 with which the other petitions are not concerned. We will deal with that separately.2. The present petition (No. 86 of 1952) was argued very ably and with commendable conciseness by the petitioner in person. The fact that he has not been able to persuade us to his view is not due to any defect in his presentation of the case.3. The petitioner was arrested on November 15, 1951, and an order of detention under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 was served on him the same day, and he was given the grounds ...
State of Bombay Vs. Purushottam Jog Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1952
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR869
Bose, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Bombay High Court directing the release of the respondent who had been detained under Section 3 of the Preventive Detention Act of 1950.2. The learned Attorney-General states at the outset that Government does not want to re-arrest the respondent but merely desires to test the High Court's decision on certain points which will have far-reaching effects on preventive detentions in the State of Bombay. Following the precedent of their Lordships of the Privy Council in King-Emperor v. Vimlabai Deshpande [1946] Nag. 651 : 48 Bom. L.R. 423, we proceed to decide the appeal, but direct that the respondent shall not in any event be re-arrested in respect of the matters to which the appeal relates.3. The respondent was originally arrested under an order of the District Magistrate, Belgaum, dated February 26, 1950, though he was then beyond the jurisdiction of that authority. On July 11, 1950, the Bombay High Court held that a detention of that k...
Lachmandas Kewalram Ahuja Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-20-1952
Reported in: (1952)54BOMLR854
Patanjali Sastri, C.J., Mahajan, Mukhekjea, Das and Chandrasekhara Aiyar, JJ.1. I regret I am unable to agree with the reasoning and conclusion, of my learned brother Das, J. whose judgment I have had the advantage of reading.2. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to death and varying terms of imprisonment by the Special Judge, Ahmedabad, on charges of murder and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Bombay District Police Act. The Special Judge was appointed by a notification issued under the Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the impugned Act) and on August 6, 1949, the State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 12 of the impugned Act, directed the Special Judge to try the case of the appellants who were implicated in what was known as the Central Bank Robbery Case. Charges were framed on January 13, 1950, without any preliminary enquiry and committal by a Magistrate which had been dispensed ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›