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.

Sukumar Majumdar Vs. Emperor

Sukumar Majumdar vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 22, 1932
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/863985

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
Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sukumar Majumdar

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred
Emperor v. Harendra Chandra Chakravarty
Reported In
AIR1932Cal867a

Excerpt

- jack, j.1. this is an appeal under section 33, bengal emergency powers ordinance 11 of 1931. it appears in this case, sentence of four years' imprisonment was passed by the special magistrate, in which case an appeal lies to the special tribunal constituted for the area in which the offence was tried. under the proviso to clause (1), section 33, where no special tribunal has been so constituted, an appeal shall lie to the court of sessions. an appeal hag therefore been made in the present case to this court. in the case of emperor v. harendra chandra chakravarty : air1925 cal384 it was held that the high court exercising original criminal jurisdiction is not a sessions court within the meaning of the criminal procedure code. in the circumstances, this appeal must be rejected for want of jurisdiction, leaving it to the appellant to take such steps as he may be advised to take in the matter, as it appears that it was intended that there should be an appeal. had the sentence been over four years, the appeal would have been to this court, but, in the circumstances, no appeal lies to this court, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Full Judgment

Jack, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 33, Bengal Emergency Powers Ordinance 11 of 1931. It appears in this case, sentence of four years' imprisonment was passed by the Special Magistrate, in which case an appeal lies to the Special tribunal constituted for the area in which the offence was tried. Under the proviso to Clause (1), Section 33, where no Special tribunal has been so constituted, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Sessions. An appeal hag therefore been made in the present case to this Court. In the case of Emperor v. Harendra Chandra Chakravarty : AIR1925 Cal384 it was held that the High Court exercising Original Criminal Jurisdiction is not a Sessions Court within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the circumstances, this appeal must be rejected for want of jurisdiction, leaving it to the appellant to take such steps as he may be advised to take in the matter, as it appears that it was intended that there should be an appeal. Had the sentence been over four years, the appeal would have been to this Court, but, in the circumstances, no appeal lies to this Court, and the appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial