Emperor Vs. Mathura Prasad

Emperor vs Mathura Prasad

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 06, 1902

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/862654

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/862654
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Prinsep and ;Stephen, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 06, 1902
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Attachment - Idol--Offerings to an idol, attachment of--Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) Section 266--'Saleable property'--Right to receive offerings to an idol--'Disposing power' over such offerings--Decree, execution of. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Mathura Prasad

Excerpt

attachment - idol--offerings to an idol, attachment of--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882) section 266--'saleable property'--right to receive offerings to an idol--'disposing power' over such offerings--decree, execution of. - prinsep and stephen, jj.1. the object of the reference seems doubtful. the subdivisional magistrate, who is also chairman of the municipality, has in one order convicted the accused under section 273 (1) of the bengal municipal act, 1884, and, in addition to sentence, has, as chairman, in the same order directed the demolition of the addition made to his house. the act condemned is the commencement of a second storey without permission. we can find no necessity for such permission. the building regulations, section 236 et seq, relate to building or rebuilding a house. the previous sections relating to alteration of a house contemplate obstruction or encroachments on roads. this is not the ground of objection. we do not therefore see how the case comes within section 273 (1). consequently we set aside the whole order. the fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Full Judgment

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.

1. The object of the reference seems doubtful. The Subdivisional Magistrate, who is also Chairman of the Municipality, has in one order convicted the accused under Section 273 (1) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, and, in addition to sentence, has, as Chairman, in the same order directed the demolition of the addition made to his house. The act condemned is the commencement of a second storey without permission. We can find no necessity for such permission. The Building Regulations, Section 236 et seq, relate to building or rebuilding a house. The previous sections relating to alteration of a house contemplate obstruction or encroachments on roads. This is not the ground of objection. We do not therefore see how the case comes within Section 273 (1). Consequently we set aside the whole order. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Same Parties Emperor vs Mathura Prasad Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Prinsep and ;Stephen, JJ.

Criminal