Chaito Kalwar Vs. Emperor

Chaito Kalwar vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 08, 1924

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/851219

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/851219
Court: Kolkata
Decided On: Jan 08, 1924
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chaito Kalwar

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: AIR1928Cal240

Excerpt

- .....and this may be sent to some other magistrate.3. on this mr. wajid ali, exercising apparently the powers of the chief presidency magistrate, recorded the order 'to my file' and adjourned the hearing to 16th may. on that date the petitioner appears to have raised an objection to his trial but the hearing was further adjourned to 29th may when a written petition was put in on his behalf claiming that he had already been acquitted of the charge on which he was then being tried. the magistrate's order on this wasfiled. i think the case under section 54-a, act 4, 1866 may proceedand proceed it did and resulted in the conviction which is the subject of this rule. it is not clear from an examination of the record whether it was intended to exclude the charge under section 54-a from the first trial; any way, the honorary magistrate, by speaking of it as a 'connected case,' seems to have been under the impression that this charge had not been before him, an impression which resulted, i suppose, from the charge not having been pressed at the trial.4. we think that in the present case, when the goods which formed the subject of the charge under ch. 17, i.p.c., and of a charge under section 54-a, calcutta police act, were identical, the petitioner should have been tried for all these offences at one trial and should not have been subjected to two trials in respect to his possession of the same goods. we are of opinion that for this reason the second trial was bad and that the conviction in it must be set aside.5. the rule is accordingly made absolute. the goods if still in existence, will be returned to the petitioner. the petitioner will be discharged from bail.greaves, j.6. i agree.

Full Judgment

Panton, J.

1. This rule is directed against the petitioner's conviction tinder Section 54-A, Calcutta Police Act. The police charged him and other persons under Sections 407, 411 and 414, I.P.C. There was also a charge against him under the section just mentioned. An Honorary Presidency Magistrate tried these persons on 3rd May last and on that date recorded an order:

There is no good evidence against the accused. They are discharged under Section 253, Criminal P.C.

2. It appears that the petitioner was then again placed before the Honorary Magistrate to be tried for the offence under Section 54-A, whereupon the Magistrate made the following order

Put up before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. I do not wish to try this case as I have tried the connected case and this may be sent to some other Magistrate.

3. On this Mr. Wajid Ali, exercising apparently the powers of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, recorded the order 'To my file' and adjourned the hearing to 16th May. On that date the petitioner appears to have raised an objection to his trial but the hearing was further adjourned to 29th May when a written petition was put in on his behalf claiming that he had already been acquitted of the charge on which he was then being tried. The Magistrate's order on this was

Filed. I think the case under Section 54-A, Act 4, 1866 may proceed

and proceed it did and resulted in the conviction which is the subject of this rule. It is not clear from an examination of the record whether it was intended to exclude the charge under Section 54-A from the first trial; any way, the Honorary Magistrate, by speaking of it as a 'connected case,' seems to have been under the impression that this charge had not been before him, an impression which resulted, I suppose, from the charge not having been pressed at the trial.

4. We think that in the present case, when the goods which formed the subject of the charge under Ch. 17, I.P.C., and of a charge under Section 54-A, Calcutta Police Act, were identical, the petitioner should have been tried for all these offences at one trial and should not have been subjected to two trials in respect to his possession of the same goods. We are of opinion that for this reason the second trial was bad and that the conviction in it must be set aside.

5. The rule is accordingly made absolute. The goods if still in existence, will be returned to the petitioner. The petitioner will be discharged from bail.

Greaves, J.

6. I agree.

Same Parties Chaito Kalwar vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal

Criminal