Aroj Ali Mandal Vs. Emperor

Aroj Ali Mandal vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Oct 27, 1910

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/886878

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/886878
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Holmwood and ;Fletcher, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 27, 1910
Subject: Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Bengal Excise Act (VII B.C. of 1878), Section 54 - Ganja, cultivation of--License for cultivation--Cultivation of ganja in area not covered by license. -

Key legal issue: Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Aroj Ali Mandal

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In: 9Ind.Cas.707

Excerpt

bengal excise act (vii b.c. of 1878), section 54 - ganja, cultivation of--license for cultivation--cultivation of ganja in area not covered by license. - 1. after hearing the learned vakil who appeared in support of the rule and also the learned vakil showing cause on behalf of the crown, we are clearly of opinion that this case does not fall under section 54 of the excise act (vii of 1878, b. c). the license which is spoken of in that section is a license to a person, and not a license for specific area. whether section 59 applies or not is a question which we are not called upon to determine in this case, inasmuch as various questions might arise at the trial under that section as to the competence of the conditions in the license and as to whether any penalty followed on the breach of any particular conditions. these matters are not in any way before us.2. the rule must, therefore, be made absolute and the order of the lower court must be discharged. the fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing the learned Vakil who appeared in support of the Rule and also the learned Vakil showing cause on behalf of the Crown, we are clearly of opinion that this case does not fall under Section 54 of the Excise Act (VII of 1878, B. C). The license which is spoken of in that section is a license to a person, and not a license for specific area. Whether Section 59 applies or not is a question which we are not called upon to determine in this case, inasmuch as various questions might arise at the trial under that section as to the competence of the conditions in the license and as to whether any penalty followed on the breach of any particular conditions. These matters are not in any way before us.

2. The Rule must, therefore, be made absolute and the order of the lower Court must be discharged. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.

Same Parties Aroj Ali Mandal vs Emperor Same Subject Miscellaneous Same Judge Holmwood and ;Fletcher, JJ.

Miscellaneous