High CourtsDivision Bench

Emperor vs Malu Hiru Bagara

Bombay High Court · Decided on 6 May 1910 · Citation: (1910) 12 BOMLR 520

HON’BLE JUDGES
Heaton, J · Batchelor, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Forest Act, 1927 — Section 25(i)
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1910
Ask AI about this case

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

4 paragraphs · 194 words
1.

We think that this appeal must be allowed.

2.

The facts stated are that the accused was sitting in a Bhoja or a specially prepared screen devised for hunting and had by his side a loaded gun, and that he was so sitting there with the intention of hunting.

3.

Upon those facts we have no doubt that the accused was hunting within the meaning of Section 25, Clause (i) of the Indian Forest Act where the word "hunt" is used intransitively and in that use the meaning ascribed to it in Murray''s Dictionary is to go in pursuit of wild animals, to engage in the chase." A similar interpretation is adopted in Webster''s Dictionary, and it appears to us that in the ordinary use of the English language the accused on the facts before us was hunting.

4.

We, therefore, set aside the acquittal and convict the accused and as this appears to be a test case in which Government have given no instructions as to the sentence, we impose a penalty of Rs. 10. In default of payment of fine the accused to be kept to simple imprisonment for seven days.