Kolkata Court January 1881 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Empress Vs. Shibo Behara
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal584
Mitter, J.1. Whether the Judge was right or not in postponing the trial after it had once begun, I think this Court has the power to quash an illegal commitment at any stage of a criminal proceeding.2. In these two cases I am of opinion that the commitments should be set aside on the ground that the sanction for prosecution under Section 211 was illegally given. Whatever might have been said in Nusibunnissa Bihee v. Sheikh Erad Ali (4 C. L. R., 413), the later cases have distinctly laid it down that a sanction for prosecution under Section 211 given without hearing all the witnesses whom a complainant wishes to produce in Court, is illegal. In these cases, therefore, the original orders sanctioning prosecution under Section 211 are illegal. That being so, the commitments are also illegal. I would, therefore, set them aside as recommended by the Judge.Maclean, J.3. The principle involved in these cases is the same as that involved in the case of Chukrodhur Pati just disposed of; and as ...
Baba Mohamed Vs. Webb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal786
Morris, J.1. The question before us relates to an alleged adjustment of a decree, which was obtained on the 18th March 1876, and affirmed on appeal on the 16th August of the same year.2. The decree-holder was declared by the decree entitled to partition of a specified share, and to be put in possession of the same. He took out execution in September 1879 (whereby this case comes under the provisions of Act X of 1877 as originally framed), and he was put in possession under the decree on the 30th November 1879. Thereupon the judgment-debtor objected, that, in January 1877, the decree-holder had obtained satisfaction of the decree, and that this was evidence by a lease of the land covered by the partition-decree, which the decree-holder had given to him on that date.3. The first Court declined to take this lease into consideration, or to interfere with the possession that had been given to the decree-holder.4. The Judge on appeal decided that, whether Section 288 of the Civil Procedure C...
Mahomed Syud and ors Vs. Parmeshari Proshad NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal608
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case claim an exclusive right of ferry across the river Nun, from their own ghat in Mouza Buch on the eastern side of the river, to the ghat of the defendant in Mouza Kistwara Fakir on the western side of the river. They claim not only the right to carry passengers by this ferry, and to take tolls from them, but also to exclude the defendant from interfering with their profits by exercising a similar right of ferry on the western side of the river. This right is claimed by the plaintiffs as a matter of private property, and they say that the defendant has interfered with their alleged right by ferrying passengers across the river in an ekta boat and taking tolls from them.2. The defendant denies the plaintiffs' alleged right, and sets up a similar right as belonging to himself: and the issues are intended to raise, and do raise in my opinion, the question, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the right which they set up.3. The plaintiffs h...
The Empress Vs. Salik Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal582
Mitter, J.1. This is a reference from the Judge of Sarun asking us to quash a commitment. The ground upon which we are asked to do so is, that the accused, who is charged with an offence under Section 211, Penal Code, should not have been committed for trial until the complaint which he made had been judicially enquired into; and the Judge refers to a case decided by this Court which he considers applies to the present case.2. If the case referred to by the Sessions Judge is the case of Biyogi Bhaqut (4 C. L. R., 134), we may point out that it is not in all respects similar to the present case. In that case the complainant, dissatisfied with the Police investigation and report, made a complaint to the Magistrate, which was dismissed without hearing his witnesses.3. We do not find in the record that there was any complaint made to the Magistrate in this case; but on the report of the Police that the case was false, the prosecution of the complainant was set on foot. We are unable to say...
Kally Soondery Dabia Vs. Hurrish Chunder Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal594
Mitter, J.1. (after stating the facts down to the decision of the Privy Council, continued),-Hurro Kinkurry Dabia, on the 4th January 1880, conveyed away to the respondent her right, title, and interest in the subject-matter of the suit, etc., and made over to him the certified copy of the decree made in appeal to the Judicial Committee. Previously, however, she had produced this certified copy in this Court, when she made an application in the matter of security for costs which she had given in the Privy Council appeal proceedings. A copy of this certified copy of the final decree of the Privy Council is on the record of this Court.2. The appellant before us then made an application to this Court setting out all these facts, to be allowed to execute the decree of the Court of first ^instance as restored and affirmed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The respondent raised two objections,-first, that the application was not accompanied by a certified copy of the decree of ...
J.E. Maclachlan Vs. Juggernath Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal681
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It is clear from these letters, that the construction which the plaintiff put upon the contract, and which has been adopted by the Court below, was that, although the whole of November was the period mentioned in the contract for giving and taking delivery of the goods, the particular time in November at which the delivery was to commence was to be determined by a seven days' notice, which was to be given by the buyer, The buyer had thus the option of fixing the time for delivery; and at the expiration of the seven days' notice, the sellers would be bound to commence to deliver, although, of course, they would be allowed a reasonable time after the expiration of the notice for completing the delivery.2. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that they had the whole month of November in which to deliver the ginger; and that although the seven days' notice might have been given by the plaintiff on the 1st of November, the defendants would still have until the ...
Mona Sheikh Vs. Ishan Bardhan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal581
Mitter, J.1. We do not think that the trial and acquittal were illegal. As for the order for compensation, Section 209 seems to contemplate a dismissal of the complaint rather than an acquittal of the accused; but referring to Section 212 and to the order in which the sections come, we are not prepared to say that an order to pay compensation may not be added to an acquittal....
The Empress on the Prosecution of Jogendronath Bose Vs. Thompson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal523
Prinsep, J.1. On a complaint made before the Presidency Magistrate under Section 22 of the Telegraph Act, a summons was issued on the 4th September last, fixing the 15th for the trial. The complainant and two witnesses (the Telegraph clerk and peon) were then examined ; and, apparently to enable the complainant to prove that he had purchased the goodwill of the firm who were the addressees of the undelivered telegram, the trial was postponed until the 22nd, summonses being granted to procure the attendance of Mr. C. T. Davis, an offcer of the High Court, at 1 p.m. of that day.2. The case was called on towards the commencement of the Presidency Magistrate's sitting, and the complainant being absent 'when his name was called six times,' the case was dismissed. Within a very short time the complainant appeared, accompanied by Mr. Davis. The Magistrate at once saw the unfortunate result of his precipitate action, and thinking that he could not revive the trial, adopted an alternative cours...
Ram Chunder Shaw and ors. Vs. the Empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal575
Prinsep, J.1. The three appellants before us, as well as two others, have been convicted and sentenced under Section 58 of the Beng. Excise Act (Beng. Act VII of 1878), and in addition to the penalty prescribed thereby, they have, under Section 74, been sentenced to imprisonment, in consequence of their having been previously convicted of an offence under the Act punishable with a fine of Rs. 200 or upwards.2. The Presidency Magistrate has recorded on the proceedings of the trial that he has 'not the least doubt that the defendants (with the exception of Husnoo, who has been discharged) did introduce spirituous liquors without a pass, and have committed an offence under Section 58 of the Excise Act.'3. To constitute an offence under the latter part of Section 58, it is necessary that the offender should have introduced, or attempted to introduce, for sale, spirituous liquors manufactured at another place into the limits fixed for the consumption of such liquors manufactured at such dis...
In Re: Panjab Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal579
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the conviction in this case must be set aside. The lower Court is of opinion that the prisoner is guilty, under Sections 447 of the Indian Penal Code, of criminal trespass. In order to constitute that offence, it is necessary to establish, on behalf of the prosecution, that the entry into another person's property must have been made with intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult, or annoy that person in his possession, or that, having lawfully entered the premises, remaining there for the purpose of intimidation, annoyance, or insult, or with intent to commit an offence. Now in this case, which was tried summarily, we have simply before us the finding and the reasons upon which the conviction is based under Clouse (h), Sections 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that Sections the Magistrate was not required to record any evidence.2. We think that, under the clause in question Clouse (h) of Sections 227], a Magistrate, in record...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›