Kolkata Court October 1894 Judgments
Balmakand Ram Vs. Ghansam Ram
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-27-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal391
Banerjee and Sale, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of Monghyr of the offence of lurking house trespass by night, and has been sentenced under Section 456 of the Indian Penal Code to six months' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the Sessions Judge, but his appeal has been dismissed. He now asks us to interfere under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and set aside the conviction on the ground that, to constitute the offence of which he has been convicted, there must be criminal trespass, that is, trespass with one or more of the guilty intentions specified in Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code; that such intention must be specified in the charge, proved by evidence, and specifically found by the Court; and that as, in this case, no such intention is alleged, proved, or specifically found by the Lower Appellate Court, the conviction cannot stand.2. The facts of the case, as stated by the learned Sessions Judge, are shortly t...
Tag this Judgment!Farkan and ors. Vs. Somsher Mahomed and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-24-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal241
Banerjee and Sale, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the Deputy Commissioner of Sylhet to show cause why his order dated 4th September 1894 should not be set aside and the appeal re-heard. The ground upon which we have been asked to interfere in this case is that the order complained of which is the judgment of the Deputy Commissioner on appeal from a judgment of the Deputy Magistrate does not comply with the requirements of Section 367 read with Section 424 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment is an extremely short one. It is in these terms: 'After hearing the arguments of the pleaders for the appellants and examining the record, I am of opinion that the lower Court had ample ground for convicting the accused of rioting. I do not consider the sentence too severe.' It does not, as Section 367, which is made applicable to appellate judgments by Section 424, requires, contain the point or points for determination, nor any explicit statement of the reasons for the decision on s...
Tag this Judgment!The Deputy Legal Remembrancer on Behalf of the Government of Bengal Vs ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal164
Banrjee and Sale, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against an order of the Sessions Judge of Bankura acquitting on appeal the accused Karuna Baistobi, who had been convicted by the Deputy Magistrate of that district under Section 373, Indian Penal Code, for buying two minor girls for the purpose of prostitution: The undisputed facts of the case are that the accused Karuna Baistobi purchased the two girls from their father on two dates separated by a short interval, the first one for Rs. 9 and the second for Rs. 14; that the girls are twins about one year old; and that their father sold them, their mother being dead and he having found some difficulty in bringing them up. The question that really arises for determination in this case is whether the girls were bought with the guilty intention or knowledge which is requisite under Section 373 to constitute the offence made punishable by that section. The evidence adduced i...
Tag this Judgment!Lilla Singh and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-17-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal286
Banerjee and Sale, JJ.1. The question raised in this case is whether the conviction of the petitioners under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is legal. They have been convicted under that section for obstructing a butwara Amin who proceeded to measure some lands in the course of partition of an estate under Bengal Act VIII of 1876. That the Amin was technically obstructed is not denied; that is to say, it is not denied that the Amin was told that he should not measure the lands he wanted to measure; but the accused deny having done anything more than that; nor does the Deputy Magistrate find that the obstruction was of any aggravated kind. The question, therefore, is reduced to this, namely, whether the accused, by preventing the Amin from measuring the lands in question, voluntarily obstructed a public servant in the discharge of his public functions within the meaning of Section 186 of the Penal Code. Now, the petitioners are not co-sharers in the estate under partition, which is...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›