Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.53 seconds)
D.K. Chandra vs The State on 3 August, 1951 cites

Emperor vs Manant K. Mehta on 30 July, 1925

[9] The text case is Emperor v. Manant, 27 Bom. L. R. 1343 That is a judgment of Fawcett and Coyajee JJ. and the facts there were very similar to the facts here before us. The accused was charged with having committed criminal breach of trust as the manager in respect of three items and he was also charged at the same trial with falsification of accounts with reference to the same three items. The trial was sought to be justified on the ground that althongh the offence of criminal breach of trust was not of the same kind as the offence of falsification of accounts there were a series of acts so connected together as to form but one transaction, and that Sections 234 and 235 (1) which form exceptions to the general rule, affirmed in Section 233, were not mutually exclusive and that therefore Section 235 (1) mast be read with Section 234. Coyajee J. in his judgment at p. 1346 points out that he was unable to accept this contention. He says:
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Emperor vs Keshavlal Tribhuvandas Panchal on 24 April, 1944

[7] Now in the light of these remarks we might examine the authorities that were cited at the bar. Turning to Our own High Court, the earliest case to which our attention has been drawn is a decision in Emperor v. Tribhuvandas, 10 Bom. L. R. 801. That is a judgment of Chandavarkar and Heaton JJ. In that case the accused was convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of having committed offences under Sections 124A and 153A. Penal Code, in respect of two articles. He was charged under two heads and each head charged the accused with having committed offences under Sections 124A and 153A, Penal Code. The accused appealed to this Court and one of the grounds of appeal was that there was a misjoinder of charges. It was contended on behalf of the accused by Mr. Baptista that the offence charged under Section 124A, Penal Code being distinct from and not an offence of the same kind as the offence charged under Section 153A of the same Code, there was a misjoinder of charges. Chandavarkar J. pointed out that the charge for the offence under Section 124A, Penal Code, in respect of one of the two articles in question could be legally joined to the charge for the offence under the 'same section in respect of the other article, and according to the learned Judge reading Sections 236 and 237, he could have been convicted under Section 153A even though he had been only charged under Section 124A and there had been no charge under Section 153A. On that ground the learned Judge rejected the contention of Mr, Baptists, Now that decision undoubtedly strongly supports the contention advanced by the Government Pleader. But with respect to the learned Judge we might point out that he has overlooked the provisions of Section 234 (1) which did not permit the joinder of trial with regard to four offences which are not of the same kind. It is no justification to suggest that Sections 124A and 153A could have been joined together. They might have been joined together as forming part of the same translation under Section 235 or they might have been joined together on the basis that there was a question of doubt under Section 236. But whatever the position might have been under Section 235 or Section 236, what the Court had to consider was whether the joinder was justified under Section 234, and in the view that we have taken, with very great respect to that bench, we do not think that that decision was correct. Further, Chandavarkar J., says at p. 807 that:
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next