Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

The Empress Vs. Charu Nayiah

The Empress vs Charu Nayiah

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided May 04, 1877
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/852698

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Trepas - Infringement of exclusive right of fishery in public river--Penal Code, Section 447. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Empress

Respondent

Charu Nayiah

Legal References

Reported In
(1877)ILR2Cal355

Excerpt

criminal trepas - infringement of exclusive right of fishery in public river--penal code, section 447. - markby, j.1. we agree with the sessions judge in thinking that the prisoner was wrongly committed. it was proved that the prisoner fished in a public river at a place where the prosecutor had the exclusive right of fishery. the deputy magistrate held that this constituted criminal trespass; but we do not think so. the law provides that whosoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with a certain intent, is guilty of criminal trespass. but though a fishery is property, we do not think that a man who fishes in a public river enters upon property in the possession of another, though he may have no right to fish there. the river upon which the prisoner entered being a public one was not in the exclusive possession of any one, and a right of fishery is not property of such a nature as that a man who unlawfully infringes that right can be said to enter upon property in the possession of another within the meaning of the section.

Full Judgment

Markby, J.

1. We agree with the Sessions Judge in thinking that the prisoner was wrongly committed. It was proved that the prisoner fished in a public river at a place where the prosecutor had the exclusive right of fishery. The Deputy Magistrate held that this constituted criminal trespass; but we do not think so. The law provides that whosoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with a certain intent, is guilty of criminal trespass. But though a fishery is property, we do not think that a man who fishes in a public river enters upon property in the possession of another, though he may have no right to fish there. The river upon which the prisoner entered being a public one was not in the exclusive possession of any one, and a right of fishery is not property of such a nature as that a man who unlawfully infringes that right can be said to enter upon property in the possession of another within the meaning of the section.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial