Queen-empress Vs. Solomon

Queen-empress vs Solomon

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 23, 1890

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/863477

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/863477
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Wilson, J.
Decided On: Jul 23, 1890
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Practice - Prosecutor's right of reply--Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882), Sections 289, 292. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Queen-empress

Respondent

Solomon

Legal References

Reported In: (1890)ILR17Cal931

Excerpt

practice - prosecutor's right of reply--criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), sections 289, 292. - wilson, j.1. the question raised now is one which i think i am bound to answer at this stage, in fairness to those who have the responsibility of conducting the case for the prosecution and for the defence, namely, whether, in the events which have happened down to this stage, the crown is entitled to a reply, this seems to me to depend solely on the provisions of section 292* of the code of criminal procedure. independently of authority i should have thought that it did not give the crown the right of reply. it only gives the right when the accused has stated, in reply to the question put to him under section 289, that he means to adduce evidence. i further think it is my duty to follow the decisions of this court rather than that of the madras high court. i hold, therefore, that up to this stage of the case nothing has happened which gives the crown a right of reply.* prosecutor's right of reply.[section 292: if the accused, or any of the accused, has stated when asked under section 289, that he means to adduce evidence, the prosecutor shall be entitled to reply.]

Full Judgment

Wilson, J.

1. The question raised now is one which I think I am bound to answer at this stage, in fairness to those who have the responsibility of conducting the case for the prosecution and for the defence, namely, whether, in the events which have happened down to this stage, the Crown is entitled to a reply, This seems to me to depend solely on the provisions of Section 292* of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Independently of authority I should have thought that it did not give the Crown the right of reply. It only gives the right when the accused has stated, in reply to the question put to him under Section 289, that he means to adduce evidence. I further think it is my duty to follow the decisions of this Court rather than that of the Madras High Court. I hold, therefore, that up to this stage of the case nothing has happened which gives the Crown a right of reply.

* Prosecutor's right of reply.

[Section 292: If the accused, or any of the accused, has stated when asked under Section 289, that he means to adduce evidence, the prosecutor shall be entitled to reply.]

Same Parties Queen-empress vs Solomon Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Wilson, J.

Criminal