J.D. Boywalla vs Sorab Rustomji Engineer on 31 January, 1941
In support of this conclusion, he relied upon the ruling of this Court in Boywalla v. Sorab Engineer (1941) 43 Bom.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)Basdeo Agarwalla vs Emperor on 19 January, 1945
L.R. 529 and the ruling of the Federal Court in Basdeo Agarwalla v. Emperor (1945) 47 Bom. L.R. 392 F.C.. We do not wish to go into this question, because to determine what was the date upon which the prosecution in this case was instituted, the date upon which the Magistrate took cognizance, is not directly relevant. If, at all, it is relevant, it is relevant because the Magistrate could only take cognizance after the police sent him a report, as in cases in which there is no complainant, it is when the police sent up to the Magistrate a report that he can take cognizance. But the reason why we do not wish to go into the question is that this appeal must fail on another ground, that is, that even though Government in. this case did accord their sanction to the prosecution of the accused for the contravention of Sections 6 and 10 of the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance, the sanction did not state in regard to what act of the accused the sanction was given. This would not necessarily be a fatal defect if there was evidence on the record to show what was the act of the accused person in regard to which the sanction had been given. It has been frankly conceded, however, before us by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that apart from the sanction there is no evidence to show in regard to what particular breach of Sections 6 and 10 sanction had been accorded to prosecute the accused, and the sanction does not say what was the breach for which the accused was to be prosecuted, and for which sanction has been given. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
1