Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bhavdu Dhondu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 306 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1913)15BOMLR53
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBhavdu Dhondu
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 476 - civil court-mamlattors' courts act (bombay act ii of 1906).;the mamlatdar's court, constituted under bombay act ii of 19b6, is a civil court within the meaning of section 476 of the criminal; procedure code, 1898. - .....judge of khandesh, postponing the trial of a certain sessions case on the ground- that in the judge's opinion the commitment for trial to his court was illegal. that opinion was based upon the view that the mamlatdar's court constituted under bombay act ii of 1906 is not a civil court within the meaning of section 476, criminal procedure code. we are of opinion that there is a uniform current of decisions by this court adverse to the view which the judge below took: see, for instance, in re savanta ilr (1880) 5 bom. 137; bhagwandas v. jedu (1902) 4 bom. l.r. 970; narayan v. tukaram : (1907)9bomlr896 ; and purshottam v. mahadu : (1912)14bomlr947 . we are further of opinion that there is nothing in the provisions of the present act of 1906 to suggest that the decisions of this court,.....
Judgment:

Batchelor, J.

1. This is an application by the Government of Bombay for revision of an interlocutory order passed by Mr. Varley, the Sessions Judge of Khandesh, postponing the trial of a certain Sessions case on the ground- that in the Judge's opinion the commitment for trial to his Court was illegal. That opinion was based upon the view that the Mamlatdar's Court constituted under Bombay Act II of 1906 is not a civil Court within the meaning of Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code. We are of opinion that there is a uniform current of decisions by this Court adverse to the view which the Judge below took: see, for instance, In re Savanta ILR (1880) 5 Bom. 137; Bhagwandas v. Jedu (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 970; Narayan v. Tukaram : (1907)9BOMLR896 ; and Purshottam v. Mahadu : (1912)14BOMLR947 . We are further of opinion that there is nothing in the provisions of the present Act of 1906 to suggest that the decisions of this Court, such as In re Savanta, require any amendment or reconsideration. We must, therefore, set aside the order made by the Sessions Judge and direct him to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.


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