Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Rash Behari Shaw (Handa) And Ors. vs Emperor on 10 July, 1936

Sayyed Sohel Torvi vs National Investigating Agency on 3 September, 2022

"5. Mr Purshottam then argues that even if the joint trial may be justified it was not open to the prosecution to charge the appellant at such a joint trial with the commission of a specific act of breach of trust as alleged in charge six. This argument is wholly untenable. Under Section 235(1), if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for, every such offence. Whereas Section 239(d) allows a joinder of persons at a criminal trial, Section 235(1) allows joinder of charges subject to the conditions mentioned respectively in the said two provisions. In other words, these provisions constitute an exception to the provisions of Section 233 as well as those under Section 234(2). There is, therefore, no doubt that, in a case of conspiracy, if specific offences are committed in pursuance of the said conspiracy, all persons who are parties to that conspiracy and are also concerned in the specific offences thus committed can be lawfully tried jointly at the same trial. (Vide: Rash Behari Shaw (Handa) v. Emperor [AIR 1936 Cal 753].)"
Karnataka High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sanyasi Gain And Ors. vs Emperor on 14 January, 1937

2. Thus the evidence of deliberate conspiracy is very thin, but if the evidence that the same gang of men systematically committed a series of dacoities by similar methods on each occasion is believed, there can be no doubt that there must have been some understanding or agreement between them that when summoned by the organisers they would unite together to commit these dacoities. Thus every series of gang robberies committed by the same gang might be said to be the outcome of a criminal conspiracy. Moreover, on behalf of the prosecution, cases have been referred to in which it was held that in order to legalize such a trial it is only necessary to show that there was a bona fide accusation of conspiracy embracing all the criminal acts; it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish that in fact there was such a conspiracy. The latest of these is the case in Rash Behari Shaw v. Emperor . In this case it was held that where there is a charge of conspiracy having one or more objects in view, the offence of conspiracy and acts committed in pursuance of it come under one transaction, and that in judging of the validity of a trial, the test to be applied in the accusation made and not the result of the trial. The matter must be looked at as it appeared to the Magistrate when framing charges. It was also held that, where the irregularity, if any in the joint trial of several persons at one and the same trial is not one which in the actual facts of the case caused any prejudice to the accused or by itself entailed any failure of justice, it is no ground for quashing the proceedings, the more so, when no protest or complaint is made by or on behalf of the accused against the course adopted by the Magistrate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Akhil Bandhu Ray And Ors. vs Emperor on 19 August, 1937

11. We hold therefore that in the circumstances the learned Magistrate acted rightly in the exercise of his inherent power in ordering a de novo trial, and that there is no reason to set aside his order. The whole difficulty has arisen because the Magistrate refused to consider the question of the joinder of charges, though it was raised by the Public Prosecutor in his opening, until he had recorded all the prosecution evidence. He referred to the case in Rash Behari v. Emperor called the Electricity Theft Case, as authority for his action. In our opinion it is not so. The point for decision in that case was what must be looked to, to see whether there has been misjoinder. A number of decisions are quoted in which it was held that the accusations must be looked to, not the result of the case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Ors. vs Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma And Ors. on 23 January, 1963

60. It was next urged on behalf of the respondent that under Section 39 of the Act, the existence of an artificial means of abstraction can at best raise a presumption that there was a theft of electrical energy, but that would not necessarily constitute a conclusive proof of such theft. Reliance was placed upon Rash Behari v, Emperor, AIR 1936 Cal 753, in which the following observation occurs at page 766:
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Nizam Sugar Factory Limited vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 24 February, 1956

7. The difference between these two definitions is obvious in that for purposes of Sales Tax Act stocks and shares, growing crops, grass etc., are excluded though for purposes of Sale of Goods Act they have been included. Ignoring those specifically excluded or included things, "goods" both for purposes of the Sale of Goods Act as well as for the Sales Tax Act generally man all or every kind of moveable property. Section 22 of the Indian Penal Code defines movable property as intended to include corporeal property of every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth. The question in this case is what is meant by moveable property and whether steam can properly be termed goods. Learned advocate for the petitioner contends on the basis of the decision in Rash Behari Shaw v. Emperor (1936 41 Cal. W.N. 225), where the Calcutta High Court had doubted whether electricity would come within the definition of goods under the Sale of Goods Act, that it is doubtful whether steam can be said to be goods. Before examining the meaning and import of the word "goods" it might be useful to refer to a few decisions on the point.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - P J Reddy - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Anjanabai Alias Anjana Mohan Gavit And ... on 19 February, 1997

"Whereas S. 239(d) allows a joinder of persons at a criminal trial, S. 235(1) allows joinder of charges subject to the conditions mentioned respectively in the said two provisions. In other words, these provisions constitute an exception to the provisions of S. 233 as well as those under S. 234(2). There is, therefore, no doubt that, in a case of conspiracy, if specific offences are committed in pursuance of the said conspiracy, all persons who are parties to that conspiracy and are also concerned in the specific offences thus committed can be lawfully tried jointly at the same trial. (Vide Rash Behari Shaw v. Emperor ."
Bombay High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 3 - S S Parkar - Full Document

Trustees Of The Port Of Madras vs The State Of Madras on 27 November, 1959

8. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that water could never be the subject-matter of a sale, as it would not be goods within the meaning of the Act or the Sale of Goods Act. Reliance was placed for this contention in a passage contained in Mulla's Commentary on the Sale of Goods Act, at page 13 and to the observations in Rash Behari v. Emperor A.I.R 1936 cal. 753 at 766. It is unnecessary, however, to consider whether the authorities referred to above had in view only running water or water impounded and reduced to a person's possession as well.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next