AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 147 wordsN.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.—We do not think we ought to interfere in this case. The word " harbour" in the section must be construed liberally. A man charged with an offence might today be found in the house of another, and although he might be living in the house owned by that other person, yet if for all practical purposes the, harbouring was at the instance of some person not owning the house but visiting him, then this last person is in law a person harbouring the accused. Here the finding is that the harbouring was at the instance of and by the accused. We reject the application.
Heaton, J.
I agree that we ought not to interfere in this case. I think the two lower Courts have arrived by a series of inferences from proved facts at a conclusion which is justified by the facts.