Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BOYS, J.
Musammat Bahri - Appellant
Versus
Emperor - Respondent
Decided On : 30-06-1925
JUDGMENT
Boys, J. - A woman has been convicted u/s 118(1)(a)(iii) of the Cantonment Act (II of 1924) for having "wilfully and indecently exposed her person." The learned District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court, without going into the evidence, on the ground that in his opinion there can be no conviction under that section. He says "that offence is wilful or indecent exposure of the person. If, as alleged, the woman went into the barracks for immoral purposes she can have given no offence by her exposure."
2. The giving of offence by the exposure is not a necessary ingredient of the offence u/s 118(1)(a)(iii). The offence is complete if the exposure is "wilful or indecent" and in a public place.
3. Parenthetically I would observe that "or" would seem to be a mistake in the Act for "and." The Legislature could hardly have intended that mere "wilful exposure" not also indecent or mere "indecent exposure" not also wilful should be an offence.
4. The woman had apparently either deliberately left the barracks improperly clothed or much more probably, because she had no business there, had been compelled to escape in an improperly clothed condition. Even in the latter case, the exposure would be consequence of her own act and would be, therefore, in law "wilful."
5. But, of course, the facts are to be determined on the evidence.
6. Let the papers be returned for disposal of the case in accordance with the above observations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
