Code, and as authority for this, reference has been made to Queen-Empress v. Morton (1884) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 288, Queen-Empress v ... Tilak (1897) I.L.R. 22 Bom. 112. The decision of Queen-Empress v. Morton (1884) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 288 turned
authority. In support of this, he relied upon the ruling in Queen-Empress v. Ganu (1889) Unrep. Cr. C. 486 and the English cases there ... were referred to. It is to be noted, however, that Queen-Empress v. Ganu dealt not with Section 80 of the Bombay District Police
been placed principally upon the judgment of Stephen, J. in Emperor v. Nirmal Kanta ... that a wider construction had been placed on Section 34 in Queen-Empress v. Mahabir Tiwari
Section 304, Penal Code.
The view of law laid down in Queen-Empress v. Jabanullah ('96) 23 Cal. 975 has been followed in Calcutta ... followed the decision in Queen-Empress v. Jabanullah ('96) 23 Cal. 975. Identical view was taken by a Bench of this Court consisting
cases of Jai Narayan Rai v. Queen-Empress (1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 862, 869. Queen-Empress v. Sagal Samba Sajao ... v. Balvant Pendharkar (1874) 11 Bom. H. C. R. 137., Empress v. Mukhun Kumar (1877) I. C. L. R. 275, 281., Queen-Empress v. Dada
which the preceding sections are intended to exclude.
6. Next is Queen-Empress v. Babu ... either shape would have to be admitted. In Adu Shikdur v. Queen-Empress 11 C 635 it was held that Section 27 was not intended
Bikao Khan v. The Queen-Empress I.L.R. 16 Cal. 610; Queen-Empress, v. Madho I.L.R. 15 All. 25; Sheru Sha v ... Queen-Empress I.L.R. 20 Cal. 642; Queen-Empress v. Nasir-ud-din I.L.R. 16 All. 207; Queen-Empress v. Taj Khan
other Courts as well: see Queen Empress v. Nagla Kala (1898) 22 Bom 235 and has never been dissented from anywhere else.
10. A history ... decision of the Allahabad High Court in the celebrated case of Queen-Empress v. Babu Lal (1884) 6 All 509. In that case
judicial proceeding and I differ on this point from Queen-Empress v. Parshram Raysing (1883) I.L.R. 8Bom. 216; Queen-Empress v. Alagu Kone ... inquiry or trial: Empress v. Anuntram Singh (1880) I.L.R. 5 CaL. 954, F.B; Empress of India v. Yakub Khan
take such statement outside rulings like those in Queen-Empress v. Babaji [1892] 17 Bom. 127 and Queen-Empress v. Balkrishna Vithal ... order hand in Queen v. Gopal Doss [1881] 3 Mad. 271 (F.B.); Queen-Empress v. Moss [1893] 16 All. 88; and Kallu v. Sital
