High CourtsDivision Bench(1911) 10 BOM CK 0002

Emperor vs Keshavlal Girdhar

Bombay High Court · Decided on 17 October 1911 · Citation: (1912) 14 BOMLR 144

HON’BLE JUDGES
Russell, J · Chandavarkar, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal application for Revision No. 260 of 1911

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 128 words
1.

The order is illegal. The Sessions Judge puts it on the ground that in effect he is only " adjourning the proceedings at present" by not passing a sentence but instead calling on the accused to furnish security. In the first place, if it is an adjournment-which it is not, we think- no Court has inherent power to adjourn the passing of sentence in this way for an indefinite period and the Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion unreasonably. Secondly, the order cannot be treated as one of adjournment because the Sessions Judge has, as a matter of fact, directed security to be given. Such an order is legally and practically one of sentence. The order is quashed and the accused sentenced to one year''s rigorous imprisonment.