Kolkata Court September 1892 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.
Nilkanta Singh and ors. Vs. the Queen-empress at the Instance of Manjh ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-23-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal469
Pigot and Hill, JJ.1. The judgment of the High Court (PIGOT and Hill, JJ.) was as follows : In this case a rule was granted under Section 257 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied for upon the ground that the Magistrate was wrong in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the witnesses for the prosecution. The grounds of the rule are sufficiently stated in the judgment which was delivered at the time that the rule was granted. They were expressly stated to be, by reason of the omission of the Magistrate to record his grounds for considering the application to recall the witnesses for the prosecution, to be a frivolous and vexatious one, or, to use the terms of the section, made for purposes of vexation and delay or of defeating the ends of justice.2. The Magistrate omitted to record the reasons for his refusal, and by reason of that omission we thought it right to call the case up here. When called up hero the case is to be looked at for this purpose, viz., to see whether...
Jatra Shekh Vs. Reazat Shekh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal483
ORDERPigot and Hill, JJ. 1. We think that when the husband is complainant and brings his complaint under Section 366, a conviction under Section 498 may properly be had, if the evidence be such as to justify a conviction for the minor offence, and yet insufficient for a conviction for the graver one. We think that such a case is within the intention of Section 238. The intention of the law is to prevent Magistrates inquiring of their own motion into cases connected with marriage, unless the husband or other person authorised moves them to do so : and we think it cannot be hold that a conviction such as was had in the present case was contrary to the intention of the law in this respect.2. We do not think we should interfere with the conviction of either prisoner.3. Although in the present case we do not think we should interfere, we fully agree with the general principle as to the infliction of non-appealable sentences referred to by the Sessions Judge. We observe with approval that th...
Bharut Chunder Nath Vs. Jabed Ali Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal481
ORDERPigot and Hill, JJ. 1. We have read the explanation of the Deputy Magistrate forwarded upon receipt of our order of the 24th August.2. The distinction pointed out by the Deputy Magistrate between Section 250, now repealed, and Section 560, that at present in force, does no doubt exist.3. But in this case the peon was not the real complainant, the Munsif, acting judicially, was the real complainant, and although the peon was nominally informant in the case before the Deputy Magistrate, the complaint was not his, nor can the proceedings properly be said to have been instituted before the Deputy Magistrate upon his information.4. We agree with the Sessions Judge that under these circumstances the peon ought not to be held liable to pay compensation under the section. We think the Deputy Magistrate fell into an error in not noticing that the law was set in motion against the accused, nut by the peon but by a judicial officer acting as such.5. Very possibly the Munsif was misled by the...
Nilmoni Singh Deo Vs. Nilu Naik and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal425
Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for certain zemindari papers, for an account, and for a certain sum of money, on the allegation that the defendants were employed as his tahsildars or collection agents in toke Gopalpur from 1291 to Jait 1294, and in toke Hajambasta in 1295 down to Assin; that they had from time to time rendered accounts which were afterwards found to be false; that they had in fact misappropriated Rs. 1,743-15-8 which they had realised in excess of the sums entered in the papers filed by them in plaintiff's sherishta; and that their fraudulent acts came to light since Assin 1295.2. The defendants urged that the Court in which the suit was brought had no jurisdiction to try the suit as regards Hajambasta; that the suit was untenable by reason of misjoinder of different causes of action; that the suit was barred by limitation; that the defendants had rendered a true account to the plaintiff, and that they had not misapprop...
Baidyanath Deb and ors. Vs. Sajedur Raja
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1892
Reported in: (1893)ILR20Cal397
Norris and Macpherson, JJ.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises as gathered from the evidence upon the record, and the statements of the learned pleaders for the parties, are these.2. In the town of Sylhet there is an akhra of the idol Narsingha. This akhra is very old, but when it was founded or established, or by whom, does not appear.3. The mohunt of the akhra has, up to the date of the institution of this suit, always been a Baisnab of the Ramayat sect; but every Hindu who pleases can worship in the akhra and render service to the idol, and many persons residing in the neighbourhood of the akhra other than the plaintiffs and the forty-two persons on whose behalf the suit is brought, do as a matter of fact worship therein and render service to the idol.4. In the year 1268 (B. S.) one bala Bhadra Das was mohunt of the akhra, and on the 6th Chaitra, of that year, corresponding to 18th March 1862, he made a will which is in the following terms: 'This will is executed by Bala Bha...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›