Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Chinto Bhairava - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 100 of 1907
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR93
AppellantEmperor
RespondentChinto Bhairava
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
practice-enhancement of sentence-conviction treated as conclusive.; it has been the invariable practice of the bombay high court, in cases that come up before it for enhancement of sentence, to accept the conviction as conclusive and to consider the question of enhancement of sentence on that basis. - 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 bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter..........and ought, we think, to be followed. it was open to the opponent to apply for revision of the conviction but having failed to avail himself of that, he cannot be permitted to assail the conviction in a proceeding where the sole question is whether the sentence passed by the lower court is adequate or not. we enhance the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for two months in addition to the sentence of fine passed by the magistrate which is to remain.
Judgment:

Curiam, J.

1. Mr. Khare, the learned pleader for the opponent, in showing cause why the sentence should not be enhanced, asks us to allow him to discuss the evidence and satisfy us that his client has been wrongly convicted. But we cannot allow that as it has been the invariable practice of this Court in such cases to accept the conviction as conclusive and to consider the question of enhancement of sentence on that basis. That practice has been consistently adhered to by this Court for over 25 years now, and ought, we think, to be followed. It was open to the opponent to apply for revision of the conviction but having failed to avail himself of that, he cannot be permitted to assail the conviction in a proceeding where the sole question is whether the sentence passed by the lower Court is adequate or not. We enhance the sentence to one of rigorous imprisonment for two months in addition to the sentence of fine passed by the Magistrate which is to remain.


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