Kolkata Court September 1894 Judgments
Sabir and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal276
Trevelyan and Banerjee, JJ.1. In this case two persons have been convicted by a Judge and jury, and, of course, in accordance with the law, it is necessary for us to find a defect in the charge, or in some other portion of the procedure, before we can interfere with the conviction. On the question of sentence, however, that is in our hands.2. The occurrence which led to this charge was a dispute about the possession of an orchard. It was claimed by Esaf, who is one of the appellants before us. The case of the prosecution is that the two appellants, with others, went to this orchard for the purpose of gathering the fruit of some mango trees growing there, and an altercation arose between them, and a man named Nidu, who was acting on behalf of the rival claimants to this orchard. In the end it is said that the accused Sabir struck Nidu on the head with a lathi, and that two days afterwards Nidu died. Sabir has been convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code of causing the death...
Tag this Judgment!Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Pertab Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal77
Trevelyan, J.1. In this case the suit was brought by a landlord against his tenant praying (a) that it may be declared that the defendant had no right to build houses; (6) upon determination of the above prayer, the defendant may be ordered to remove the houses within a fixed time and reduce the land to its former condition; (c) if the defendant fail to remove the houses within the fixed time, he may be ejected from the land and khas possession awarded to plaintiff. The first question that was tried by the learned Munsif was as to whether the plaintiff had complied with the provisions of Section 155 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and had given the notice therein provided for. He came to the conclusion that the notice was defective on the ground that the plaintiff did not therein ask for compensation for the breach. He also considered that on other grounds it was defective. There were raised before him, besides the first issue which refers to limitation, a question which does not arise here...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Gasper
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-11-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal935
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. It does not appear that the Code contains any provision for the trial of claims which may be preferred to property which is distrained under Section 386, and any orders which this Court might issue could only be by way of advice. We are of opinion that when the Magistrate had issued his warrant under that section in the form given in the schedule, he had done all that was required of him by the Code, and that he is nowhere required by law to try any claim that may be preferred to the ownership of the property distrained. We express no opinion as to how such claims can be determined....
Tag this Judgment!Raj Chunder Mozumdar Vs. Gour Chunder Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1894
Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal176
W. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This is a rule to quash a commitment to the Sessions Court on the ground that the prosecution was commenced after the expiration of the period during which the necessary sanction for the prosecution under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, was in force. It appears that in consequence of certain proceedings in the Civil Court, the Munsif of Lakhipur, in the district of Noakhali, on the 5th of September 1893, sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner on charges under Sections 193 and 471 of the Penal Code. The petition for the criminal prosecution was not, however, presented till the 7th of March 1894. The objection was at once taken that under Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, the sanction of the 5th of September 1893, was no longer in force. But this objection was overruled on the ground that the last few days were close holidays. The enquiry accordingly proceeded, and on the 19th of July last the petitioner was committed to take his...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›