SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Bom) 35

GAJENDRAGADKAR, VYAS
W. H. King – Appellant
Versus
Emperor. – Respondent


Advocates:
I.C. Dalal - for Applicant. H.M. Choksi - for the State.

Judgement

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. :- This is an application for a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was prosecuted in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 19th Court, Bombay, for offences under S. 18(1) and S. 19(2), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act (Bom Act LVII (57) of 1947). At the trial a charge was framed against him under bath the aforesaid sections. The learned Magistrate held that on the facts proved the petitioner was guilty of the offence under S. 19(2) of the said Act. He accordingly convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a day and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000. In default he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for sis weeks. Against this order of conviction and sentence the petitioner preferred an appeal to this Court, but the said appeal was summarily dismissed on 20th February 1950. The petitioner now wants a certificate under Art. 134(1)(c) that his case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The facts alleged against the accused are not disputed before us, but it is argued by Mr. Dalai that the question which he proposes to raise in his appe





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top