Kolkata Court May 1889 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.
Goluck Nath Alias Rakhal Das Chuttopadhya and anr. Vs. Kirti Chunder H ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-14-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal646
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.1. The rule followed in this Court not to interfere, save on some very special ground, with a finding of facts by the Lower Appellate Court on second appeal, is one which we follow with very jealous care; but in this case we cannot say that such a finding of facts, as in a case of this peculiar kind appears to us to be necessary, has been satisfactorily arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court.2. We have these facts: The defendant's father, a servant of the plaintiffs' father, purchases from the plaintiffs' mother, when she becomes a widow, the property in question. He purchases it shortly after the plaintiffs' father's death. The consideration money is Rs. 157. Of that consideration money, Rs. 65 admittedly remained in his hands, either with the intention or under colour of meeting liabilities in respect of this property, incumbent on the family of the plaintiffs. The liabilities which then existed in respect of the property consisted of the rent for 1284, which w...
Kedarnath Das Vs. Mohesh Chunder Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-13-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal662
Prinsep and Hill, JJ.1. This is a rule issued on an application made by the petitioner for the revocation of a sanction granted by the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division of the Town of Calcutta under Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, to prosecute him under Sections 182 and 211, Penal Code, in respect of certain proceedings taken by him in the Court of that Magistrate. We have nothing really amounting to any record of the proceedings in that case beyond the judgment of the Magistrate to the effect that 'the charge of theft of doors and windows made by the petitioner was not proved at all against the accused.' It appears that after the dismissal of that case, an application was made for sanction to prosecute the petitioner Kedarnath Das, in the presence of his attorney, and that the Magistrate declined to hear that application at once, and stated that it should be made at the hour fixed by him for the hearing of such applications. This order, we are told, was made, alt...
Bikao Khan and ors. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1889
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal610
Trevelyan and Hill, JJ.1. In this case the prisoners have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Durbhangah, agreeing with one of the assessors, of offences under Section 304, read with Section 149, and under Section 147 of the Penal Code.2. They have appealed to this Court, and Counsel on their behalf has urged that the evidence does not justify their conviction, and that even if the evidence, as given, would justify a conviction, the accused have been so prejudiced by the action of the Judge in excluding evidence which ought to have been admitted, that they are entitled to a new trial.3. We consider that the Judge has wrongly excluded evidence which he ought to have admitted.4. A Police officer in this case had, under the provisions of Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, examined persons who were afterwards called as witnesses.5. At the Sessions trial this Police officer was in Court, and had with him the statements which he had taken down.6. There can be no doubt that these...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›