Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Govinda Babaji Babde - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 42 of 1914
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Bom124(1); (1914)16BOMLR683
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGovinda Babaji Babde
Excerpt:
dekkhan agriculturists relief act (xvii of 1879), sections 64, 67, 2(2)(4) bullocks, sale of-passing of receirt-money includes bullocks.;a person purchasing bullocks from an agriculturist is bound to pass a receipt under section 64 of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act, for the word 'money,' as used in that section, includes bullocks. - - the conviction, therefore, so far as the law goes, is perfectly correct. nor do we see any good reason to induce us to interfere with the conviction in so far as it is based on evidence.heaton, j.1. the additional sessions judge of poona has referred this case to us. it seems that a creditor was convicted and sentenced under section 67 of the dekkhan agriculturists' relief act for not giving a receipt as required by section 64. the additional sessions judge was under the impression that section 64 did not apply to the case, because the only payment in respect of which he found it proved that a receipt was not given, was the delivery of two bullocks, whereas the section speaks of money. the definition of money, however, in the act itself says that money shall be deemed to include agricultural produce, implements, and stock. under the head of stock it would necessarily include cattle. the conviction, therefore, so far as the law goes, is perfectly correct. nor do we see.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. The Additional Sessions Judge of Poona has referred this case to us. It seems that a creditor was convicted and sentenced under Section 67 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for not giving a receipt as required by Section 64. The Additional Sessions Judge was under the impression that Section 64 did not apply to the case, because the only payment in respect of which he found it proved that a receipt was not given, was the delivery of two bullocks, whereas the section speaks of money. The definition of money, however, in the Act itself says that money shall be deemed to include agricultural produce, implements, and stock. Under the head of Stock it would necessarily include cattle. The conviction, therefore, so far as the law goes, is perfectly correct. Nor do we see any good reason to induce us to interfere with the conviction in so far as it is based on evidence. But it seems to us that the fine circumstances is somewhat excessive and we reduce it Rs. 15 The difference between the Rs. 15 and Rs. 40, paid, should be refunded.


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