Bradley Vs. Jameson

Bradley vs Jameson

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 06, 1882

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/856460

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/856460
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Cunningham and ;Tottenham, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 06, 1882
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 297 and 518 - Injunction--Review of order--Revival of order which has been quashed--High Court, superintendence of--Reference--Charter Act, 24 and 25 Vict., Clause 104, Section 15. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bradley

Respondent

Jameson

Legal References

Cases Referred: Gopi Mohun Mullick v. Taramoni Chowdrani I.L.R.
Reported In: (1882)ILR8Cal580

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), sections 297 and 518 - injunction--review of order--revival of order which has been quashed--high court, superintendence of--reference--charter act, 24 and 25 vict., clause 104, section 15. - cunningham, j.1. we think that the magistrate, having, on the 25th august 1881, set aside his order of june 7th, 1881, and struck the case off the file, had no power to revive it (without a fresh proceeding) by his order of 6th september, and that he had no power, under section 518 of the criminal procedure code, to pass a perpetual injunction: see gopi mohun mullick v. taramoni chowdrani i.l.r. 5 cal. 7. orders under section 518 not being judicial proceedings, we have no power to deal with the present case under section 297; but we infer from the judgment in in the matter of the petition of chunder nath sen i.l.r., 2 cal., 293, that the order being, in our opinion, illegal, we can deal with it under the charter. we, therefore, set it aside.

Full Judgment

Cunningham, J.

1. We think that the Magistrate, having, on the 25th August 1881, set aside his order of June 7th, 1881, and struck the case off the file, had no power to revive it (without a fresh proceeding) by his order of 6th September, and that he had no power, under Section 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to pass a perpetual injunction: see Gopi Mohun Mullick v. Taramoni Chowdrani I.L.R. 5 Cal. 7. Orders under Section 518 not being judicial proceedings, we have no power to deal with the present case under Section 297; but we infer from the judgment in In the matter of the Petition of Chunder Nath Sen I.L.R., 2 Cal., 293, that the order being, in our opinion, illegal, we can deal with it under the Charter. We, therefore, set it aside.

Same Parties Bradley vs Jameson Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Cunningham and ;Tottenham, JJ.

Criminal