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.

AmiruddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor

AmiruddIn and ors. vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jul 22, 1924
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/869165

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

AmiruddIn and ors.

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Cases Referred
Kiamuddi Karikar v. Emperor
Reported In
AIR1925Cal217

Excerpt

- sanderson, c.j.1. this is a rule granted by two of my learned brothers calling upon the district magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners salimuddy pramanik, gani pramanik and kazem pramanik under section 342 read with section 149 should not be set aside on the 7th ground stated in the petition.2. the 7th ground was that the order of separate sentence passed on the petitioners was illegal.3. the learned vakil has stated that he cannot argue that the conviction should be set aside: and, he has confined his argument to the question whether the imposition of separate sentence under section 342 read with section 149 was illegal. we are of opinion that it was, by reason of the provisions of section 71, i.p.c.4. consequently, the rule should be made absolute and the sentence of three weeks' rigorous imprisonment under sections 342 and 149 must be set aside.5. we draw the attention of the lower court to the case of alim sheikh v. shahazada singh (1904) 8 c.w.n. 483 and also to the case of kiamuddi karikar v. emperor : air1924 cal771 .6. the bail bonds of the petitioners will be cancelled.walmsley, j.7. i agree.

Full Judgment

Sanderson, C.J.

1. This is a Rule granted by two of my learned brothers calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners Salimuddy Pramanik, Gani Pramanik and Kazem Pramanik under Section 342 read with Section 149 should not be set aside on the 7th ground stated in the petition.

2. The 7th ground was that the order of separate sentence passed on the petitioners was illegal.

3. The learned Vakil has stated that he cannot argue that the conviction should be set aside: and, he has confined his argument to the question whether the imposition of separate sentence under Section 342 read with Section 149 was illegal. We are of opinion that it was, by reason of the provisions of Section 71, I.P.C.

4. Consequently, the Rule should be made absolute and the sentence of three weeks' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 342 and 149 must be set aside.

5. We draw the attention of the Lower Court to the case of Alim Sheikh v. Shahazada Singh (1904) 8 C.W.N. 483 and also to the case of Kiamuddi Karikar v. Emperor : AIR1924 Cal771 .

6. The bail bonds of the petitioners will be cancelled.

Walmsley, J.

7. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial