Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-14-1875
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom214
5. There should either be one sentence for both offences in a case of conviction of house-breaking by night in order to commit theft, and theft, not exceeding that which may be given by the law for the graver offence, or separate sentences for each offence, provided that in the aggregate the punishment awarded does not exceed that which may be given for the graver offence....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-12-1875
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom10
West, J.1. The seven prisoners were committed to the Poona Court of Session for trial on the charges of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by means of a cutting instrument (Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code) and of house-breaking by night with intent to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment (Section 457). To this the Sessions Judge added the charge of dacoity under Section 395. The jury unanimously brought in a verdict of not guilty on all these charges; but the Sessions Judge, being of a different opinion, referred the case to the High Court under Section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The portion of Section 263, under which we have to deal with this case, runs thus: 'The High Court shall deal with the case so submitted as it would deal with an appeal, but it may acquit or convict the accused person on the facts, as well as law, without reference to the particular charges as to which the Court of Session may have disagreed with the verdict, and if it convict him, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Oct-12-1875
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom15
West, J.1. After commenting on the evidence and expressing the opinion of the Court against the acquittal of Narayan and Sitabai and in favour of that of Maruti, proceeded thus:2. The acquittal of this prisoner (Maruti) makes it necessary to consider a point of law arising from it, and urged by Mr. Pandurang Balibhadra for the prisoners Narayan and Sitabai. He contended that the principal offender having been acquitted, his clients could not be convicted of abetment, and referred us to the case of Reg. v. Chaman Bapaji, noted under Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code in West's Edition of the Acts and Regulations. It was there held by Sir Richard Couch, late Chief Justice of this Court, and another Judge, on the 22nd of January 1864, that the principal offender being acquitted, a second prisoner could not, in the same trial, be convicted of abetment of the same offence. This ruling was in accordance with the state of the English law as it existed when an accessory could refuse to plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-18-1875
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom50
1. We do not think the conviction of dacoity can be sustained. That was a substantive offence completed as soon as perpetrated at Velanpor, although, had Velanpor been in British territory, the subsequent acts in the process of taking away the property might, in the legal sense as they would have the same legal character, have coalesced with the first and principal one so as to give jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But we think the conviction may be altered to one of retaining stolen property known to have been obtained by dacoity (Indian Penal Code, Section 412), and the sentences upheld. The retaining is included in the more comprehensive charge viewed as an abstract accusation of an act attended with a certain intent or consciousness, and the conception of dacoity being independent of the place where it was committed suffices to cover what is embraced within it, though the latter was an act done in British territory. The retaining was in British terri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-08-1875
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom64
1. The accusation made against the accused in this case constituted it a warrant-case falling under the provisions of Section 213 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate, Mr. Middleton, after an arrangement had been come to between the parties, divided the property between them and dismissed the complaint. By 'dismiss the case' we understand the Magistrate to have meant the same thing as is indicated by Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where it says that the Magistrate, if he finds that no offence has been proved against the accused person, shall discharge him.' 'Dismissal of a complaint' is a phrase properly applicable only to a summons case under Chapter XVI of the Code, and incapable of being applied, as Section 212 shows, to any complaint, 'except in so far as it refers to a summons case.' The provisions of Section 215 are highly useful in many cases. They enable a Magistrate, when circumstances make it expedient, to dispose of an accusation without ...
Tag this Judgment!