Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Sakharam Ganu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 242 of 1905
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR120
AppellantEmperor
RespondentSakharam Ganu
DispositionApplication allowed
Excerpt:
.....code to one under section 366 of the code; because a charge under the latter section involves different elements and different questions of fact from a charge under section 376. - 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 the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind..........penal code with the rape of a girl.2. he was convicted by the first court.3. on appeal to the sessions judge, that conviction was set aside on the ground that the girl had consented.4. the sessions judge, however, convicted the accused under section 366 and passed sentence on him.5. in our opinion it was wrong of the judge to have proceeded under section 366 because a charge under that section involved different elements and different questions of fact from a charge under section 376.6. on the ground, therefore, that there has been an irregularity in the procedure of the sessions judge, we set aside his order except so far as it involves an acquittal under section 376.7. but we express no opinion as to further proceedings being taken under section 366 or 497.8. the accused is,.....
Judgment:

Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.

1. The accused was charged under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code with the rape of a girl.

2. He was convicted by the first Court.

3. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, that conviction was set aside on the ground that the girl had consented.

4. The Sessions Judge, however, convicted the accused under Section 366 and passed sentence on him.

5. In our opinion it was wrong of the Judge to have proceeded under Section 366 because a charge under that section involved different elements and different questions of fact from a charge under Section 376.

6. On the ground, therefore, that there has been an irregularity in the procedure of the Sessions Judge, we set aside his order except so far as it involves an acquittal under Section 376.

7. But we express no opinion as to further proceedings being taken under Section 366 or 497.

8. The accused is, therefore, discharged and the fine, if paid, must be refunded.


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