Skip to content


Joseph Simon Govre Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 278 of 1951
Judge
Reported inAIR1951Bom416; (1951)53BOMLR680; ILR1951Bom700
ActsBombay Probation of Offenders Act, 1938 - Sections 4 and 5; Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949
AppellantJoseph Simon Govre
RespondentThe State
Appellant AdvocateS.H. Sheth, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateH.M. Choksi, Government Pleader
Excerpt:
bombay prohibition act (bom. xxv of 1949), sections 66(b), 85(2), 92 - bombay probation of offenders act (bom. xix of 1938), sections 4, 5--whether person convicted of offences other than of consuming liquor can get benefit of act xix of 1938.;action can be taken under section 4 and 5 of the bombay probation of offenders act, 1938, even in the case of offences, other than that of consuming liquor, punishable under the bombay prohibition act, 1949. - - 3. on merits we are satisfied that the conviction of the accused is correct. section 92 of the bombay prohibition actseems to contemplate that only persons, who havebeen convicted of the offence of consuming liquor,should be released on probation of good conduct......who havebeen convicted of the offence of consuming liquor,should be released on probation of good conduct.but sections 4 and 5 of the probation of offenders actspecifically state that the provisions of these sections are to apply, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any enactment for the time beingin force. there is no provision in the bombayprohibition act, which provides that the probation of offenders act should not be used in thecase of offences falling under the bombay prohibition act. we are, therefore, of the opinion thataction can be taken under sections 4 and 5 of the bombay probation of offenders act even in the caseof offences, other than that of consuming liquor,punishable under the bombay prohibition act.
Judgment:

Chainani, J.

1. In this case the accused has been convicted under Section 66(b) and Section 85(2) of the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 66(b) and one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 under Section 85(2) of the Act.

2. The charge against the accused was that on September 2, 1950, at about 11-80 p. m. he went near the house of witness Sutari and abused him under the influence of drink.

3. On merits we are satisfied that the conviction of the accused is correct. It has, however, been urged on his behalf that as this is the firstoffence committed by the accused, he should begiven the benefit of the Probation of OffendersAct. Section 92 of the Bombay Prohibition Actseems to contemplate that only persons, who havebeen convicted of the offence of consuming liquor,should be released on probation of good conduct.But Sections 4 and 5 of the Probation of Offenders Actspecifically state that the provisions of these sections are to apply, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any enactment for the time beingin force. There is no provision in the BombayProhibition Act, which provides that the Probation of Offenders Act should not be used in thecase of offences falling under the Bombay Prohibition Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion thataction can be taken under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Probation of Offenders Act even in the caseof offences, other than that of consuming liquor,punishable under the Bombay Prohibition Act.


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