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.

Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. Emperor

Abdul Hamid and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Mar 28, 1945
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/859738

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
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Hamid and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1948Cal107

Excerpt

- .....satisfied that the petitioners were habitual thieves, robbers or burglars. he made an order against them, however, on the ground that they are of dangerous and desparate character.4. the proceedings were laid before the learned sessions judge in due course. he held that these petitioners belong to a party led by hamid against a man named ramjan, who is admittedly a goonda and a leader of goondas. no specific incident was proved against the petitioners to suggest that they are dangerous and desperate men. the only thing which the learned judge found against them was that they go about armed with lathis. he was not prepared to reject their explanation that they do so in order to prevent themselves from being injured by the goonda, ramjan, and his party. it passes my comprehension how it can be said that persons who carry lathis in order to protect themselves from an attack by a gang of ruffians are desperate and dangerous men. even if the proceeding had been drawn up under section 107, this defence would be a complete answer.5. the rule is made absolute and i direct that the order made against the petitioners be set aside. let the petitioners be discharged from their bail bonds.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Henderson, J.

1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Mymensingh to show cause why an order calling upon the petitioners to execute bonds to be of good behaviour should not be set aside. Proceedings were drawn up against the first two petitioners and four others on a police report on 17-7-1943. Similar proceedings were drawn up against the third petitioner and one other much later on 11-12-1943. For reasons that are not at all apparent these two proceedings were tried together and one of the complaints made by the petitioners is that they have been prejudiced thereby.

2. The proceedings were drawn up on the usual lines and alleged that the petitioners were by habit thieves, robbers and burglars and men of so desperate and dangerous a character, that their being at large without security was hazardous to the community. The evidence was led on the usual lines and it is a matter of common experience that in these cases the last allegation is nothing but padding.

3. The prosecution miserably failed to establish the main part of their case and the Magistrate was not satisfied that the petitioners were habitual thieves, robbers or burglars. He made an order against them, however, on the ground that they are of dangerous and desparate character.

4. The proceedings were laid before the learned Sessions Judge in due course. He held that these petitioners belong to a party led by Hamid against a man named Ramjan, who is admittedly a goonda and a leader of goondas. No specific incident was proved against the petitioners to suggest that they are dangerous and desperate men. The only thing which the learned Judge found against them was that they go about armed with lathis. He was not prepared to reject their explanation that they do so in order to prevent themselves from being injured by the goonda, Ramjan, and his party. It passes my comprehension how it can be said that persons who carry lathis in order to protect themselves from an attack by a gang of ruffians are desperate and dangerous men. Even if the proceeding had been drawn up under Section 107, this defence would be a complete answer.

5. The Rule is made absolute and I direct that the order made against the petitioners be set aside. Let the petitioners be discharged from their bail bonds.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial