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.

Fidoi HosseIn Vs. Emperor

Fidoi Hossein vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Nov 28, 1912
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/864549

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
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Practice - Appellate Court, duty of--Defective judgment--Omission to consider the defence evidence in a bad livelihood case--Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Sections 110, 118, 367 and 424. -

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fidoi Hossein

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
(1913)ILR40Cal376

Excerpt

practice - appellate court, duty of--defective judgment--omission to consider the defence evidence in a bad livelihood case--criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 110, 118, 367 and 424. - sharfuddin and coxe, jj.1. this is a rule calling upon the district magistrate to show cause why the order of the appellate court, under section 110 of the criminal procedure code, should not be set aside and the appeal re-heard, on the ground that the district magistrate had omitted to take into consideration the evidence for the defence.2. we have received the explanation sent to us by the learned district magistrate, wherein he has admitted that in the appeal before him he did not think it necessary to deal with the evidence adduced by the defence in the case. but he says this was because no reference to that evidence was made by the counsel who appeared for the appellant before him, and the evidence on the part of the defence was practically ignored in the argument. there is no doubt, however, that it was the duty of the appellate court to look into that evidence, and after dealing with it to come to a decision. for that reason we think it necessary that the case should go back for re-hearing. the appeal will be re-heard by the district magistrate, and at the re-hearing of the appeal he should deal with the evidence on both sides.

Full Judgment

Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.

1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order of the Appellate Court, under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside and the appeal re-heard, on the ground that the District Magistrate had omitted to take into consideration the evidence for the defence.

2. We have received the explanation sent to us by the learned District Magistrate, wherein he has admitted that in the appeal before him he did not think it necessary to deal with the evidence adduced by the defence in the case. But he says this was because no reference to that evidence was made by the counsel who appeared for the appellant before him, and the evidence on the part of the defence was practically ignored in the argument. There is no doubt, however, that it was the duty of the Appellate Court to look into that evidence, and after dealing with it to come to a decision. For that reason we think it necessary that the case should go back for re-hearing. The appeal will be re-heard by the District Magistrate, and at the re-hearing of the appeal he should deal with the evidence on both sides.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial