Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Kavtik Chaitram and Narayan Baldev Palwa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal References Nos. 87 and 88 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR241
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKavtik Chaitram and Narayan Baldev Palwa
Excerpt:
bombay regulation xii of 1827, section 27 - notice-district magistrate-action with respect to suspected characters-procedure to prove the suspected character-assent of the person dealt with.;before any action, under section 27 of the bombay regualtion xii of 1827, can be taken against a person (1) he must be shown, in accordance with legal procedre, to have been a suspeted person and (2) his assent to the measures adopted shoud be taken. - lawrence jenkins, k.c.i.e., c.j.1. narayan baldev palwa has been convicted of breach of the restriction specified in a notice issued under section 27 of bombay regulation xii of 1827, and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment.2. the matter has been referred to us by the sessions judge and he recommends that the conviction should be reversed.3. there is nothing on the record which shows that any case had been made for action against the accused under section 27 of regulation xii. he is not shown in accordance with legal procedure to have been suspected person, and it does not appear that his assent to the measures adopted was ever taken.4. under these circumstances, we think that the sessions judge was right in the view he took of the case.5. we, therefore, reverse the conviction.
Judgment:

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

1. Narayan Baldev Palwa has been convicted of breach of the restriction specified in a notice issued under Section 27 of Bombay Regulation XII of 1827, and sentenced to one day's simple imprisonment.

2. The matter has been referred to us by the Sessions Judge and he recommends that the conviction should be reversed.

3. There is nothing on the record which shows that any case had been made for action against the accused under Section 27 of Regulation XII. He is not shown in accordance with legal procedure to have been suspected person, and it does not appear that his assent to the measures adopted was ever taken.

4. Under these circumstances, we think that the Sessions Judge was right in the view he took of the case.

5. We, therefore, reverse the conviction.


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