Queen-empress Vs. Gasper

Queen-empress vs Gasper

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 11, 1894

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/857737

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/857737
Court: Kolkata
Judge: W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and ;Beverley, J.
Decided On: Sep 11, 1894
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882), Section 386 - Distress Warrant--Claim by third party to the property distrained. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Gasper

Legal References

Reported In: (1895)ILR22Cal935

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 386 - distress warrant--claim by third party to the property distrained. - w. comer petheram, c.j. and beverley, j.1. it does not appear that the code contains any provision for the trial of claims which may be preferred to property which is distrained under section 386, and any orders which this court might issue could only be by way of advice. we are of opinion that when the magistrate had issued his warrant under that section in the form given in the schedule, he had done all that was required of him by the code, and that he is nowhere required by law to try any claim that may be preferred to the ownership of the property distrained. we express no opinion as to how such claims can be determined.

Full Judgment

W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.

1. It does not appear that the Code contains any provision for the trial of claims which may be preferred to property which is distrained under Section 386, and any orders which this Court might issue could only be by way of advice. We are of opinion that when the Magistrate had issued his warrant under that section in the form given in the schedule, he had done all that was required of him by the Code, and that he is nowhere required by law to try any claim that may be preferred to the ownership of the property distrained. We express no opinion as to how such claims can be determined.

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Gasper Same Subject Criminal Same Judge W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and ;Beverley, J.

Criminal