Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Jaffar Haji Ismail - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 125 of 1905
Judge
Reported in(1908)10BOMLR1052
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJaffar Haji Ismail
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
cantonment code, 1899, section 66 (1)-carrying meat exposed to public view-servant's offence-master's liability.;the offences aimed at by section 66 (1) of the cantonment code, are personal offences and not offences which can be committed by delegation.;hence, a master cannot be punished tinder the section for an act of his servant in carrying meat in a bullock cart exposed to public view, which is not proved to be committed with his knowledge or authority. - - 20, for carrying meat in a bullock cart exposed to public view contrary to the provisions of section 66 (1) of the cantonment code, 1899. 2. the accused is a meat contractor and although the cantonment magistrate has found him responsible for the act of his servant in carrying meat, which had been condemned by the cantonment..........for the act of his servant in carrying meat, which had been condemned by the cantonment authorities, in a cart exposed to public view, it is not found that the meat was so carried with the knowledge of the accused.3. the question of the accused's liability must turn upon the interpretation to be placed upon section 66 (1) (a) (vi), which provides that ''whoever in any street or public place within the cantonment carries meat exposed to public view,' shall be punishable.4. an examination of the other sub-sections of section 66(1), (a), leads to the conclusion that that the offences that are aimed against are personal offences and not offences which can be committed by delegation. we therefore think that the cantonment magistrate was not right in holding the accused responsible.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the accused has been fined Rs. 20, for carrying meat in a bullock cart exposed to public view contrary to the provisions of Section 66 (1) of the Cantonment Code, 1899.

2. The accused is a meat contractor and although the Cantonment Magistrate has found him responsible for the act of his servant in carrying meat, which had been condemned by the Cantonment Authorities, in a cart exposed to public view, it is not found that the meat was so carried with the knowledge of the accused.

3. The question of the accused's liability must turn upon the interpretation to be placed upon Section 66 (1) (a) (vi), which provides that ''whoever in any street or public place within the cantonment carries meat exposed to public view,' shall be punishable.

4. An examination of the other Sub-sections of Section 66(1), (a), leads to the conclusion that that the offences that are aimed against are personal offences and not offences which can be committed by delegation. We therefore think that the Cantonment Magistrate was not right in holding the accused responsible under that clause for the act of his servant which was not proved to be committed with his knowledge or authority.

5. We set aside the conviction and sentence and order that the fine, if paid, be refunded.


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