Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Jina Badhar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal application for Revision No. 322 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR163
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJina Badhar
Excerpt:
.....to preserve the proclamation and the record must be so clear as to satisfy the court that all the legal formalities were duly observed. - 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 addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was..........to preserve proclamations and the record must be so clear as to satisfy the court that all the legal formalities duly observed. we think that in this case the evidence is no sufficient to show that the formalities were observed by the court. on that ground the rule must be made absolute and the order of the court below confiscating the property must b set aside and the property ordered to be returned to the petitioner. we may refer in support of our view to queen empres v. subbarayar ilr (1895) mad. 3.batchelor, j.3. i agree. it seems to me that in consequence of the lower court's neglect to observe the imperative provisions of the criminal law we have no materials be fore us on which we can be satisfied that a legal proclamation was ever legally issued. all that the learned.....
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. Neither the proclamation nor any copy is forthcoming in this case to satisfy the Court that either the proclamation was issued, or if it was issued, that any period of time was prescribed thereby. There were, no doubt, some materials upon the record to show that a proclamation was perhaps issued. But those materials afford ground for mere conjecture, but no certainty which is essential in a criminal case where the Court is asked to confiscate private property.

2. We think that Magistrates ought to take particular care in such cases to preserve proclamations and the record must be so clear as to satisfy the Court that all the legal formalities duly observed. We think that in this case the evidence is no sufficient to show that the formalities were observed by the Court. On that ground the rule must be made absolute and the order of the Court below confiscating the property must b set aside and the property ordered to be returned to the petitioner. We may refer in support of our view to Queen Empres v. Subbarayar ILR (1895) Mad. 3.

Batchelor, J.

3. I agree. It seems to me that in consequence of the lower Court's neglect to observe the imperative provisions of the criminal law we have no materials be fore us on which we can be satisfied that a legal proclamation was ever legally issued. All that the learned Government Pleader can point to is the statement of one of the accuse' persons that a proclamation of some undescribed sort was a some unspecified time issued. But it appears to me clear the a vague admission of this kind does not supply us with material enough to confirm the order which has been made.


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