Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Shahukha Mahibukha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 230 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1907)9BOMLR164
AppellantEmperor
RespondentShahukha Mahibukha
Excerpt:
.....section-specific instances need not be proved.;the finding that an accused person is by general repute a habitual offender committing mischief and thnt ho protects thieves is sufficient to warrant notion under section 110 of the criminal procedure code, 1898. it is not necessary for the purposes of the section that specific instances should be given. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have..........that this is not so. but there is a residuum which falls under clauses (b) and (f) of section 110, criminal procedure code. the magistrate found that the accused was by general repute a habitual offender committing mischief and that he protected thieves. it was not necessary for the purposes of section 110, criminal procedure code, that specific instances should be given. if specific instances had been established, the accused might have been charged with the offences specified. the magistrate was justified by section 117 in accepting the evidence of general repute that the accused was an habitual offender. we are specially impressed with the finding that the accused is a desperate and dangerous man within the meaning of section 110(f) which seems to be based on very definite evidence of.....
Judgment:

Batty, J.

1. We do not think that this is a case in which we can interfere. It comes before us in revision, and. in revision it is not usual for us to appreciate evidence. It is suggested that some of the Magistrate's findings are irrelevant for the purposes of Section 110 and we are unable to say that this is not so. But there is a residuum which falls under Clauses (b) and (f) of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate found that the accused was by general repute a habitual offender committing mischief and that he protected thieves. It was not necessary for the purposes of Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, that specific instances should be given. If specific instances had been established, the accused might have been charged with the offences specified. The Magistrate was justified by Section 117 in accepting the evidence of general repute that the accused was an habitual offender. We are specially impressed with the finding that the accused is a desperate and dangerous man within the meaning of Section 110(f) which seems to be based on very definite evidence of witnesses who say that they themselves have been intimidated by threats, in some cages carried out by damage by fire to their property in case they did not comply with the demands of the accused. These are findings which suffice in our opinion to support the action taken under Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code. Whether the evidence was open to criticism or not we decline to discuss.

2. We decline to interfere.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //