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.

Lalta and ors. Vs. the State and anr.

Lalta and ors. vs The State and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 11, 1953
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/859616

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Revn. No. 577 of 1953
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 341 and 427

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lalta and ors.

Advocate Ajit Kumar Dutta and ;Promode Kumar Mukherjee, Advs.

Respondent

The State and anr.

Advocate Arun Prakash Chatterjee, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 341 and 427
Reported In
AIR1954Cal192

Excerpt

- orderchunder, j.1. this is an application in revision by four accused persons who are employed in a market in connection with their convictions and sentences under sections 341 and 427 of the indian penal code.2. the facts as found by the presidency magistrate and as explained in his further explanation are that a fisher woman named sarala dasi used to occupy on payment of rent daily a particular stall in a fish market belonging to the landlord whose men the four accused persons are and who wanted to give this stall to some other person of their own choice. the learned magistrate thinks that this was to get a higher rent.3. mr. dutta has argued that as a daily toll used to be taken it is not leasing of immovable property. the contention on the finding of the learned magistrate as to the stall cannot be sustained. as the fisher woman had a right to be at that particular stall and could not be thrown out of it without due process of law, preventing her from exercising her right to go to the stall was rightly considered an offence under section 341 of the indian penal code. it further appears that in order to prevent her from using the property, that is, in order to diminish the utility of the property to her, rubbish etc. were dumped by the landlord's men. the learned magistrate in view of the definition of mischief as given in the indian penal code rightly considered that this came within the offence of mischief. the sentences call for no interference.4. the rule is accordingly discharged.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Chunder, J.

1. This is an application in revision by four accused persons who are employed in a market in connection with their convictions and sentences under Sections 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts as found by the Presidency Magistrate and as explained in his further explanation are that a fisher woman named Sarala Dasi used to occupy on payment of rent daily a particular stall in a fish market belonging to the landlord whose men the four accused persons are and who wanted to give this stall to some other person of their own choice. The learned Magistrate thinks that this was to get a higher rent.

3. Mr. Dutta has argued that as a daily toll used to be taken it is not leasing of immovable property. The contention on the finding of the learned Magistrate as to the stall cannot be sustained. As the fisher woman had a right to be at that particular stall and could not be thrown out of it without due process of law, preventing her from exercising her right to go to the stall was rightly considered an offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that in order to prevent her from using the property, that is, in order to diminish the utility of the property to her, rubbish etc. were dumped by the landlord's men. The learned Magistrate in view of the definition of mischief as given in the Indian Penal Code rightly considered that this came within the offence of mischief. The sentences call for no interference.

4. The Rule is accordingly discharged.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial