Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Mahomed Isaf Habib - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 3 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR200
AppellantEmperor
RespondentMahomed Isaf Habib
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 35, 397--concurrent sentences-consecutive sentences--separate trials--practice.;at a trial held by a magistrate the accused was convicted of cheating and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. he was immediately tried by the same magistrate for another cheating and was convicted. the magistrate sentenced him to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and ordered the two sentences to run concurrently: -- ;that the order of the magistrate was not illegal, inasmuch as the trials took place on one and the same day and one after the other, it was for all practical purposes one trial. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he.....order1. the prisoner, it is true, was tried separately for the two offences of cheating ; but he could have been tried at one trial for both: section 234, criminal procedure code; and in that case the sentences could have been legally ordered to run concurrently: section 35, criminal procedure code. in the present case, the trials took place on one and the same day and one after the other. so it was for all practical purposes one trial. the court, therefore, does not consider the order of the trial magistrate in this case to be illegal.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The prisoner, it is true, was tried separately for the two offences of cheating ; but he could have been tried at one trial for both: Section 234, Criminal Procedure Code; and in that case the sentences could have been legally ordered to run concurrently: Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code. In the present case, the trials took place on one and the same day and one after the other. So it was for all practical purposes one trial. The Court, therefore, does not consider the order of the trial Magistrate in this case to be illegal.


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