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.

Ram Prosad Maitra Vs. Emperor

Ram Prosad Maitra vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided May 28, 1928
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/860469

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

Ram Prosad Maitra

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1928Cal569

Excerpt

- 1. in this case, the complaint was dismissed under section 203, criminal p.c. subsequently, the matter went before the learned sessions judge and he was of opinion that the complaint should not have been disposed of under section 203, criminal p.c., without the complainant been examined on oath. it appears, however, that the complainant was not present in court on any of the dates on which the matter came before the magistrate. therefore, the magistrate had no opportunity whatsoever of examining the complainant on oath. it was the business of the complainant to be present in court if he desired to have his statement taken on oath. as already stated he not being present in court the matter was disposed of by the magistrate under section 203, criminal p.c. in a case like this, where the complainant does not choose to be present, he cannot be heard afterwards to say that the matter should be sent back to the magistrate for further enquiry. in this view of the matter the order made by the learned sessions judge is set aside. the rule is accordingly made absolute.

Full Judgment

1. In this case, the complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P.C. Subsequently, the matter went before the learned Sessions Judge and he was of opinion that the complaint should not have been disposed of under Section 203, Criminal P.C., without the complainant been examined on oath. It appears, however, that the complainant was not present in Court on any of the dates on which the matter came before the Magistrate. Therefore, the Magistrate had no opportunity whatsoever of examining the complainant on oath. It was the business of the complainant to be present in Court if he desired to have his statement taken on oath. As already stated he not being present in Court the matter was disposed of by the Magistrate under Section 203, Criminal P.C. In a case like this, where the complainant does not choose to be present, he cannot be heard afterwards to say that the matter should be sent back to the Magistrate for further enquiry. In this view of the matter the order made by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The Rule is accordingly made absolute.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial