Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Shinvar Birsha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Referances Nos. 106 and 107 of 1913
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Bom179(1); (1914)16BOMLR203
AppellantEmperor
RespondentShinvar Birsha; And; Loria ZardiA.
Excerpt:
.....exclusively to the powers of the high court of correcting sentences of the lower courts where the sentences ought to be deterrent. in a case of that kind, where the prosecuting authorities think that a sentence ought to be deterrent, they ought to put before the trying court those circumstances on which they rely and they ought to ask the trying court to impose a sentence which will servo the purpose that they think should be served. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against..........together. in each case the penalty is a fine of rs. 100 and in each case the district magistrate thinks that the penalty is insufficient for the offence.2. we quite agree that the penalty does appear to be insufficient. the offence is represented to be one that is frequently committed and seldom discovered, or rather it is seldom that a conviction can be obtained against the offender. in one case, however, of the same kind (reference no. 102 of 1913), we have made an example of the convicted person by sentencing him to a substantial term of imprisonment. in that case the fine was only rs. 30 as against rs. 100, in each of the present cases. bearing that in mind and in the hope that the one case in which we have made an example will serve as a warning, we refrain from enhancing.....
Judgment:

1. We can deal with these two references together. In each case the penalty is a fine of Rs. 100 and in each case the District Magistrate thinks that the penalty is insufficient for the offence.

2. We quite agree that the penalty does appear to be insufficient. The offence is represented to be one that is frequently committed and seldom discovered, or rather it is seldom that a conviction can be obtained against the offender. In one case, however, of the same kind (Reference No. 102 of 1913), we have made an example of the convicted person by sentencing him to a substantial term of imprisonment. In that case the fine was only Rs. 30 as against Rs. 100, in each of the present cases. Bearing that in mind and in the hope that the one case in which we have made an example will serve as a warning, we refrain from enhancing sentences in these two cases.

3. We must again call attention to a matter which in other cases we have mentioned already and it is this. It is very undesirable to trust exclusively to our powers of correcting sentences of the lower Courts where the sentences ought to be deterrent. In a case of that kind where the prosecuting authorities think that a sentence ought to be deterrent, they ought to put before the trying Court those circumstances on which they rely and they ought to ask the trying Court to impose a sentence which will serve the purpose that they think should be served. If this is done, as it ought to be done, there will be fewer of these references to us for enhancing sentences.


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