Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Dhondi Bapu Bhapkar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 71 of 1906
Judge
Reported in(1906)8BOMLR850
AppellantEmperor
RespondentDhondi Bapu Bhapkar
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 35-penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 457, 380-distinct offences-conviction-sentence-powers of the magistrate to pass consecutive sentences.; the offences under sections 457 and 380 of the indian penal code not being distinct offences, the trying magistrate's ordinary jurisdiction is not enhanced by the provisions of para 2 and proviso (b) of section 35 of the criminal procedure code. - 1. the offences under sections 457 and 380 of the indian penal code not being distinct offences (see illustration to section 35, criminal procedure code) the trying magistrate's ordinary jurisdiction was not enhanced by the provisions of para 2 and proviso (b) of section 35, criminal procedure code, and the magistrate was not competent to pass sentences exceeding in the aggregate two years imprisonment. see queen empress v. malu (1899) 1 bom. l.r. 142 : i.l.r. 23 bom. 706. we alter the two separate sentences to one of two years rigorous imprisonment.
Judgment:

1. The offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code not being distinct offences (see illustration to Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code) the trying Magistrate's ordinary jurisdiction was not enhanced by the provisions of para 2 and proviso (b) of Section 35, Criminal Procedure Code, and the Magistrate was not competent to pass sentences exceeding in the aggregate two years imprisonment. See Queen Empress v. Malu (1899) 1 Bom. L.R. 142 : I.L.R. 23 Bom. 706. We alter the two separate sentences to one of two years rigorous imprisonment.


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