Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bhujabali Akappa Gorwadi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Application for Revision No. 130 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1912)14BOMLR583
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBhujabali Akappa Gorwadi
DispositionApplication dismissed
Excerpt:
indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 216-harbouring offender-offence.;the word ' harbour' in section 216 of the indian penal code 1860, must be ooubtfued liberally. it includes the case of a person who harbours the offender in a house belonging to a third person who visits him there. - n.g. chandavarkar, kt., j.1. we do not think we ought to interfere in this case. the word ' harbour' in the section must be construed liberally. a man charged with an offence might today be found in the house of another, and although he might be living in the house owned by that other person, yet if for all practical purposes the, harbouring was at the instance of some person not owning the house but visiting him, then this last person is in law a person harbouring the accused. here the finding is that the harbouring was at the instance of and by the accused. we reject the application. heaton, j.2. i agree that we ought not to interfere in this case. i think the two lower courts have arrived by a series of inferences from proved facts at a conclusion which is justified by the facts.
Judgment:

N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.

1. We do not think we ought to interfere in this case. The word ' harbour' in the section must be construed liberally. A man charged with an offence might today be found in the house of another, and although he might be living in the house owned by that other person, yet if for all practical purposes the, harbouring was at the instance of some person not owning the house but visiting him, then this last person is in law a person harbouring the accused. Here the finding is that the harbouring was at the instance of and by the accused. We reject the application.

Heaton, J.

2. I agree that we ought not to interfere in this case. I think the two lower Courts have arrived by a series of inferences from proved facts at a conclusion which is justified by the facts.


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