Skip to content

Kolkata Court July 1895 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.

Jul 01 1895

Queen-empress Vs. Razai Mia

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jul-01-1895

Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal817

Macpherson and Banerjee, JJ.1. Two questions arise for consideration in this case:First, whether the confession of the prisoner recorded by the committing Magistrate on the 7th of March 1895, which is the only important evidence against him, was recorded in the manner provided by Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and was a true and voluntary confession; andSecond, whether, if the murder is proved to have been committed by the prisoner, he is not exempted from criminal responsibility by reason of unsoundness of mind.2. Upon the first point, the only objection that can be raised against the admissibility of the confession is that it was not recorded in Bengali, the language in which the accused was examined, but was recorded in English. But the evidence of the committing Magistrate, who says that there was no mohurrir with him at the time when the confession was recorded, and that he cannot write Bengali well, shows that the provisions of Section 364 of the Criminal Procedur...


Jul 01 1895

W. Duncan and anr. Vs. Bhoyro Prosad

Court: Kolkata

Decided on: Jul-01-1895

Reported in: (1895)ILR22Cal891

Sale, J.1. An application on behalf of the plaintiffs was made on summons to the Registrar for an order in the usual form under Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, directing the defendant, who is described in the cause title as an infant, to give discovery by affidavit of the documents in his possession relevant to the suit, and also to produce and give inspection of such documents.2. In accordance with the usual practice in applications for discovery, no affidavit was used in support, but it was contended that, though the party against whom discovery was sought was an infant, still, having regard to the rule newly introduced by the Supreme Court of Judicature in England (Order 31, Rule 29, Supreme Court rules) which renders orders for discovery applicable to infant plaintiffs and defendants and their next friends and guardians ad litem, the practice should be adopted in this Court of requiring infant parties to suits to give discovery by affidavit.3. The Registrar refused the ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial