The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Markby, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Markby, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Markby, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Markby, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Markby, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Markby, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Markby, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '851305',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'The Empress',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Kolkata',
			'court_type' => 'PC',
			'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Markby, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '851305',
		(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'The Empress Vs Hary Doyal Karmokar - Citation 851305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '851305',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'The Empress',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'The Empress Vs. Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'casenote' => 'Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1872), Section 195, 295 and 296 - Discharge of accused--Jurisdiction--First Evidence--Revival of Proceedings. - ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Kolkata',
		'court_type' => 'PC',
		'decidedon' => '1878-07-03',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Markby and ;Prinsep, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Markby, J.</p><p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</p><p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.</p><p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.</p><p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.</p><p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1879)ILR4Cal16',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Hary Doyal Karmokar',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '851305',
	(int) 1 => 'empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/851305/empress-vs-hary-doyal-karmokar'
$ctype = ''
$caseref = 'Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R.<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Markby, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The Deputy Magistrate, Moulvie Abdool Guffoor, discharged the accused; but, on the application of the complainant, the District Magistrate has committed him to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that objection to his jurisdiction was raised. The Magistrate appears to have considered that he had jurisdiction, because, this being a case regarding an offence triable by the Court of Session as well as by a Magistrate, ho could act under s.296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Sessions Judge has referred the case to have this commitment set aside as illegal.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The grounds on which the Magistrate held that he could re-open this case are bad, as it has been held that the term 'Sessions case' in Section 296 means a case triable exclusively by the Court; of Session. But we think that the commitment should be maintained on another ground.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. The Deputy, Magistrate discharged the accused without examining the principal witness in the case, the woman who was alone present in the house when it was robbed, because, as the Sessions Judge expresses it, 'she was reported not overstrong in the head'. The Deputy Magistrate's order was, therefore, bad; and under the rule laid down in the case of Empress v. Donnelly I.L.R., 2 Cal., 405, see p. 412, the District Magistrate was competent to revive the proceedings, further evidence being available.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. We, therefore, decline to interfere.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109