The Empress Vs. Baidanath Das

The Empress vs Baidanath Das

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 18, 1878

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/869500

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/869500
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Richard Garth, C.J., ;Kemp, ;L.S. Jackson, ;Markby and ;Ainslie, JJ.
Decided On: Feb 18, 1878
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Offence punishable by Fine and Confiscation - Act XXI of 1856, Section 49--Offences triable in a summary way--Summons Cases--Sentence--Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Sections 4, 8, 148, 149 & 222. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Empress

Respondent

Baidanath Das

Excerpt

offence punishable by fine and confiscation - act xxi of 1856, section 49--offences triable in a summary way--summons cases--sentence--criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), sections 4, 8, 148, 149 & 222. - richard garth, c.j.1. we are clearly of opinion, that an offence under section 49, act xxi of 1856, can be tried summarily by a magistrate under section 222 of the criminal procedure code.2. the confiscation, which is provided for by section 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, and does not form part of the punishment for the offence. we observe that, in the case of khetter mohun chowrunghee 22 w.r. cr. rul. 43, to which we are referred, the question which we are called upon to decide was given up by the government pleader without argument; and that in the second case the learned judges merely followed the ruling in the first, so that this would appear to be the first occasion on which the point has been seriously considered.

Full Judgment

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. We are clearly of opinion, that an offence under Section 49, Act XXI of 1856, can be tried summarily by a Magistrate under Section 222 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The confiscation, which is provided for by Section 49, is merely a consequence of the conviction, and does not form part of the punishment for the offence. We observe that, in the case of Khetter Mohun Chowrunghee 22 W.R. Cr. Rul. 43, to which we are referred, the question which we are called upon to decide was given up by the Government Pleader without argument; and that in the second case the learned Judges merely followed the ruling in the first, so that this would appear to be the first occasion on which the point has been seriously considered.

Same Parties The Empress vs Baidanath Das Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Richard Garth, C.J., ;Kemp, ;L.S. Jackson, ;Markby and ;Ainsl...

Criminal