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.

In Re: Babu Mohan Lal Chatterjee

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 07, 1943
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/868424

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
Criminal

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Babu Mohan Lal Chatterjee

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1943Cal370

Excerpt

- order1. the district magistrate of jessore had published an order in terms of rule 56 of the defence of india rules prohibiting public processions for a period beginning from august 1942, and ending january 1943. in contravention of the order so promulgated by the district magistrate, mr. mohan lai chatterjee, a pleader, practising at jessore took out a procession. he was convicted by the court of first instance for contravening the order passed under b. 56 of the defence of india rules, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. on appeal to the learned sessions judge, the learned sessions judge recorded a finding that mr. mohan lai chatterji did take part in the public procession, which had been taken out without the permission of the district magistrate. he, however, came to the conclusion that the procession was an orderly and a peaceful one. he upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only three days. as mr. chatterji is a pleader, a rule was issued by this court upon him to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the provision of section 12, legal practitioners act.2. in order that we may be able to take action against him under that section, it is necessary for us to come to the conclusion that the finding on the basis of which he has been convicted implies a defect of character, which unfits him to be a pleader. on the facts which we have recited in the earlier part of our order, we do not think that his 1 conviction implies a defect of character, which unfits him to be a pleader. we accordingly discharge this rule.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The District Magistrate of Jessore had published an order in terms of Rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules prohibiting public processions for a period beginning from August 1942, and ending January 1943. In contravention of the order so promulgated by the District Magistrate, Mr. Mohan Lai Chatterjee, a pleader, practising at Jessore took out a procession. He was convicted by the Court of first instance for contravening the order passed under B. 56 of the Defence of India Rules, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. On appeal to the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that Mr. Mohan Lai Chatterji did take part in the public procession, which had been taken out without the permission of the District Magistrate. He, however, came to the conclusion that the procession was an orderly and a peaceful one. He upheld the conviction, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, which was only three days. As Mr. Chatterji is a pleader, a rule was issued by this Court upon him to show cause why he should not be dealt with under the provision of Section 12, Legal Practitioners Act.

2. In order that we may be able to take action against him under that section, it is necessary for us to come to the conclusion that the finding on the basis of which he has been convicted implies a defect of character, which unfits him to be a pleader. On the facts which we have recited in the earlier part of our order, we do not think that his 1 conviction implies a defect of character, which unfits him to be a pleader. We accordingly discharge this rule.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial