Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Arjun Ambo Kathodi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Reference No. 100 of 1909
Judge
Reported in(1910)12BOMLR129
AppellantEmperor
RespondentArjun Ambo Kathodi
Excerpt:
.....(act v of 1898), sections 109, 123 and 397-penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 379-concurrent sentences -consecutive sentences.;the accused was proceeded against under section 109 of the criminal procedure code, and sentenced under section 123 of the code to rigorous imprisonment for nine months, in default of security for good behaviour, on the 6th july 1909. he was then tried for an offence of theft committed by him in november 1908, and was, on the 17th august 1909, sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months : the second sentence was directed to take effect on the expiry of the first sentence.;that the two sentences could not run consecutively, but must run concurrently. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis),.....1. we must accept the district magistrate's view in this reference, which is in accordance with the ruling this court in queen empress v. tulshya bahiru (1898) unr. cr. c. 970, with v. emperor v. muthttkomaran ilr (1903) 27 mad. 525 and joghi kannigan v. emperor ilr (1903) mad. 525.2. we must, therefore, make the sentences concurrent in the present case. record and proceeding to be returned with the order.
Judgment:

1. We must accept the District Magistrate's view in this reference, which is in accordance with the ruling this Court in Queen Empress v. Tulshya Bahiru (1898) Unr. Cr. C. 970, with v. Emperor v. Muthttkomaran ILR (1903) 27 Mad. 525 and Joghi Kannigan v. Emperor ILR (1903) Mad. 525.

2. We must, therefore, make the sentences concurrent in the present case. Record and proceeding to be returned with the order.


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