Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Tikaram Sakharam Kasar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 126 of 1915
Judge
Reported in(1915)17BOMLR678; 30Ind.Cas.641
AppellantEmperor
RespondentTikaram Sakharam Kasar
Excerpt:
.....code (act xlv of 1860), sections 366, 368, 376 and 498.;the accused was tried for offences punishable under sections 366, 368 and 376 of the indian penal code, and was acquitted. there was no complaint by the husband of the woman. he was again convicted, on the same facts, at the complaint of the husband, of an offence punishable under section 498 of the indian penal code. it was contended that the second conviction was bad, in view of the previous acquittal under section 403 of the criminal procedure code:-;that inasmuch as the earlier court was incompetent to try the accused for an offence under section 498 of the indian penal code in absence of complaint by the husband of the woman, the later trial of the accused under section 498, upon the husband's complaint did not violate the..........only point taken on behalf of the applicant is that the conviction is bad under section 403 of the criminal procedure code by reason of the fact that at the preceding trial before the court of session the applicant was acquitted in respect of certain offences said to have arisen out of the same transaction.2. the trial before the court of session proceeded under sections 366, 368 and 376 of the indian penal code, and there was not before the court of session any complaint by the husband of the woman. under section 199 of the criminal procedure code such complaint by the husband is a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction to try under section 498: see bangaru asari v. emperor(1). there being no such complaint by the husband before the court of session, that court not only did not.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application in revision made against a conviction under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The only point taken on behalf of the applicant is that the conviction is bad under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code by reason of the fact that at the preceding trial before the Court of Session the applicant was acquitted in respect of certain offences said to have arisen out of the same transaction.

2. The trial before the Court of Session proceeded under Sections 366, 368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and there was not before the Court of Session any complaint by the husband of the woman. Under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code such complaint by the husband is a condition precedent to the Court's jurisdiction to try under Section 498: see Bangaru Asari v. Emperor(1). There being no such complaint by the husband before the Court of Session, that Court not only did not in fact try, but was in law incompetent to try the offence alleged under Section 498. Since, then, the earlier Court was incompetent to try the accused under Section 498, the later trial of him under that section upon the husband's complaint does not violate the provisions of Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Thus the point taken by the applicant fails and the rule must be discharged.


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