Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bhau Savalaram Kotasthane - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 154 of 1914
Judge
Reported in(1914)16BOMLR943
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBhau Savalaram Kotasthane
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 110-detention of accused in jail pending inquiry-iiiegality-evidence of general repute.;detention of a person in jail against whom an inquiry under chap. viii of the criminal procedure code, 1898, is in progress, is an illegality which vitiates the trial.;the-accused, who was chairman of the managing committee of a municipality, was called upon to give security for good bebaviour; upon evidence of general repute which consisted of instances anterior to the date of such appointment-;that the evidence of general reputation must, in eases like the present, be evidence of a reputation which had been acquired since the last appointment to the office of the chairman. - - but the circumstances here are very exceptional......our law requires.3. on the merits of the case i only want to say one thing. there is evidence of general reputation. it appears, however, that the applicant was chairman of the managing committee of the municipality of vambori. now when he came to be last appointed to that office, it ought to be evident, that at that time his general reputation hardly could be that of a receiver of stolen property. and if evidence of general reputation is put forward in a case of this kind it must, so far as general reputation goes:, almost inevitably be evidence of a reputation which has been acquired since the last appointment to an office of this kind, and, as such, it can be tested perhaps more easily than is usually the case with the evidence of that type.4. for these reasons, i think, the order.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. In this case we set aside the order requiring security from the applicant.

2. We do this in revision. It is said, and no doubt correctly said, that we seldom interfere in these matters in revision. But the circumstances here are very exceptional. The applicant was sent to jail whilst the inquiry was in progress, an illegal thing and one which, on the face of it, prejudices his interests in the inquiry. Therefore, we cannot but say in this case that the inquiry has not been a fair one. It has not keen conducted with that regard for the rights and privileges of the person against whom the proceedings were taken which Emperor our law requires.

3. On the merits of the case I only want to say one thing. There is evidence of general reputation. It appears, however, that the applicant was Chairman of the Managing Committee of the Municipality of Vambori. Now when he came to be last appointed to that office, it ought to be evident, that at that time his general reputation hardly could be that of a receiver of stolen property. And if evidence of general reputation is put forward in a case of this kind it must, so far as general reputation goes:, almost inevitably be evidence of a reputation which has been acquired since the last appointment to an office of this kind, and, as such, it can be tested perhaps more easily than is usually the case with the evidence of that type.

4. For these reasons, I think, the order requiring security must be set aside.

Shah, J.

5. I agree.


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