A. Thomson Vs. Emperor

A. Thomson vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 15, 1908

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/866359

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/866359
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Sharf-ud-din and ;Coxe, J.
Decided On: Sep 15, 1908
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 144 - Extention of period of two months by repeating order. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Thomson

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: 4Ind.Cas.590

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 144 - extention of period of two months by repeating order. - 1. this is a rule on the district magistrate of the manbhoom to show cause why the order of the sub-divisional magistrate of gobindpur, dated the 22nd july 1908, directing one mr. thomson not to sink a certain pit should not be set. aside. 2. it appears that on the 2nd july 1908, the sub-divisional magistrate issued an order to mr. thomson and another directing them not to proceed further with the sinking of the pit and the order ends up with the words 'cause to be shown on the 16th july 1908 against this order.' cause was subsequently shown, and finally the order complained of was passed on the 22nd july.3. it appears to us, however, perfectly clear that the order of 2nd july was an order under section 144, criminal procedure code, and the sub-divisional, magistrate had no (sic) to extend the period of two months prescribed by that section by repeating the order on the 22nd july 1908. the operation of the order, therefore, expired on the 2nd september, 1908, and to-day being the 15th of the same month, no further orders are necessary.

Full Judgment

1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate of the Manbhoom to show cause why the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gobindpur, dated the 22nd July 1908, directing one Mr. Thomson not to sink a certain pit should not be set. aside.

2. It appears that on the 2nd July 1908, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued an order to Mr. Thomson and another directing them not to proceed further with the sinking of the pit and the order ends up with the words 'cause to be shown on the 16th July 1908 against this order.' Cause was subsequently shown, and finally the order complained of was passed on the 22nd July.

3. It appears to us, however, perfectly clear that the order of 2nd July was an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, and the Sub-Divisional, Magistrate had no (sic) to extend the period of two months prescribed by that section by repeating the order on the 22nd July 1908. The operation of the order, therefore, expired on the 2nd September, 1908, and to-day being the 15th of the same month, no further orders are necessary.

Same Parties A. Thomson vs Emperor Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Sharf-ud-din and ;Coxe, J.

Criminal