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.

Abdul Aziz Vs. Emperor

Abdul Aziz vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jan 13, 1931
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/871470

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

Abdul Aziz

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1932Cal557,137Ind.Cas.317

Excerpt

- .....postcard which was sent by abdul latif--one of the accused to a woman of the name of kamala. the question whether this evidence is admissible so far as regards abdul aziz, the petitioner before us, depends upon whether) or not the provisions of section 10, evidences act, have been complied with; in other words, whether there is reasonable ground to believe that abdul latif and this petitioner conspired together to commit an offence. if there is reasonable ground to believe it, then that lets in the postcard and whether, in the end, the finding of the court is to be that there was a conspiracy is a question which is to be determined after considering the postcard. i would point out that it will not do to say that because certain accused have since been acquitted, that is to say, since it has been held that there was not enough evidence to convict them of conspiracy, there is no reasonable ground to believe that these persons--abdul latif and abdul aziz--conspired with them within the meaning of section 10. the two things are different. in the present case, so far as the petitioner is concerned i am of opinion, upon reading the judgement of the sessions judge, that it is quite impossible to hold that there was no reasonable ground to believe conspiracy within the scope of section 10. as regards the point that the accused latif was under arrest at the time when he caused the postcard to be written that would be a very important point if the document was in the nature of a mere confession. but that is not the position here. the position here is that the contents of the postcard show that this man is endeavouring to get the petitioner to come to his rescue and is dealing with a sum of some rs. 30,000 said to be the subject-matter of the conspiracy. on the whole, i am of opinion that it cannot be made out that the postcard was inadmissible and in this view, the rule must be discharged. the petitioner who is on bail must surrender to his bail-bond and serve out the.....

Full Judgment

Rankin, C.J

1. In this case, the two grounds upon which the rule was issued have reference to the admissibility of a certain postcard which was sent by Abdul Latif--one of the accused to a woman of the name of Kamala. The question whether this evidence is admissible so far as regards Abdul Aziz, the petitioner before us, depends upon whether) or not the provisions of Section 10, Evidences Act, have been complied with; in other words, whether there is reasonable ground to believe that Abdul Latif and this petitioner conspired together to commit an offence. If there is reasonable ground to believe it, then that lets in the postcard and whether, in the end, the finding of the Court is to be that there was a conspiracy is a question which is to be determined after considering the postcard. I would point out that it will not do to say that because certain accused have since been acquitted, that is to say, since it has been held that there was not enough evidence to convict them of conspiracy, there is no reasonable ground to believe that these persons--Abdul Latif and Abdul Aziz--conspired with them within the meaning of Section 10. The two things are different. In the present case, so far as the petitioner is concerned I am of opinion, upon reading the judgement of the Sessions Judge, that it is quite impossible to hold that there was no reasonable ground to believe conspiracy within the scope of Section 10. As regards the point that the accused Latif was under arrest at the time when he caused the postcard to be written that would be a very important point if the document was in the nature of a mere confession. But that is not the position here. The position here is that the contents of the postcard show that this man is endeavouring to get the petitioner to come to his rescue and is dealing with a sum of some Rs. 30,000 said to be the subject-matter of the conspiracy. On the whole, I am of opinion that it cannot be made out that the postcard was inadmissible and in this view, the rule must be discharged. The petitioner who is on bail must surrender to his bail-bond and serve out the rest of the sentence imposed on him.

Graham, J.

2. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial