BALUBHAI G NAVLAKHI Vs. DHARAMDAS VITHALDAS SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN support of his contention that even at this stage the complaint can be dismissed and the process issued by the learned trial magistrate can be quashed, Mr. Rajani sought to rely upon a judgment of this court in Bomanji v. Mehernosh, 1980 Bom CR 503. Before mr. Rajani proceeded to read this judgment, I stopped him because it is my consistent practice not to allow this journal to be cited in my court. As the prefact of this volume shows, the publication of this journal, namely, Bombay cases Reporter, was originally published under the caption "unreported cases Reporter (Bombay)". Under the practice of this court, copies of judgments of this court which are marked by the judges to be referred to the law reporters are given to the Bombay law Reporter and the maharashtra Law Journal. The All India Reporter obtains certified copies of the judgments of this court and thereafter publishes the judgments in its journal. There is nothing in this journal called Bombay cases Reporter to indicate on what basis this journal has obtained the copies of the judgments of t he court. There is no gurantee that what has been reported in this journal is authenitic. It is not indicated by the publishers of this journal or the eiditor that the copies ofthe judgments on the basis of which they are reported in this journal are certified copies of the judgments. I have often seen grave grammatical and other mistakes appearing in the pages of this journal. I have, therefore, regarded it as hazardous to rely upon this journal and, therefore, it is my consistent practice not to allow this journal to be cited in my court. This is apart from the question involved under the Indian Law Reports Act, 1875.