Kolkata Court February 1896 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.
Queen-empress on the Prosecution of Coverjee Hari Dass Vs. Pursotam Da ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1896
Reported in: (1897)ILR24Cal193
Hill, J.1. Suggested that as it would be inconvenient to keep the jurors in attendance during the argument the prisoner might be called on to plead to all the counts, stating that if after hearing Counsel he should hold the objection good, he would order the third count to be struck out.2. A jury was accordingly empanelled, the prisoner pleading not guilty to all counts of the indictment.Mr. J. G. Woodroffe.3. The third count, though apparently in form, is in reality unsustainable. It is only sufficient if it deals with a single transaction. But it appears from the depositions that the sum alleged in that count to have been embezzled represents a general deficiency in the prisoner's account. A general deficiency may be constituted by a number of distinct embezzlements. The misappropriation of each separate item is a separate offence. Chetter v. The Queen 15 W. R. Cr. 5. When a number of sums are separately embezzled they cannot be added all together and treated as one embezzlement of t...
Jogendra Chandra Ghose and anr. Vs. Mahesh Chandra Dutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal480
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case a decree was made by the Subordinate Judge of 24-Pergunnahs, and was sent for execution to the Court of the District Judge of Jessore under Section 224 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The judgment-creditor is seeking to execute the decree against property situate within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Khulna, which is in the Jessore District. On the 28th May 1894 this decree was sent to the Subordinate Judge of Khulna for execution. The order sending it was not signed by the District Judge, but purports to have been signed by his sheristadar 'by order of Court.' Acting upon this order the property was attached. On an application being made on the 3rd of August 1895 for the sale of this property, objection was taken on the part of the judgment-debtor on the 12th September 1895 that the decree bad not been transmitted to the Court by the District Judge of Jessore, and therefore could not be executed.3. The real question which we h...
Dupeyron and anr. Vs. Driver
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal495
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the case should not be transferred from the file of the Deputy Commissioner of Manbhum to some other Court in the same District, or in any other-District competent to try the same.2. Various grounds are stated in the three affidavits put in on behalf of the petitioners upon which we are asked to grant this application for transfer. Some of these statements appear from the explanation submitted ,by the Deputy Commissioner to be inaccurate, and there are others that appear to be disingenuous. The conduct of the petitioners, who are the deponents in these-affidavits, in making statements of this sort, is, we need hardly add, highly reprehensible. Whilst expressing ourstrong disapprobation of the conduct of the petitioners in making statements like these, we do not think that they can be-regarded as sufficient ground for refusing the application, if, leaving out the- statements to which ...
Mukhi Haji Rahmuttulla Vs. Coverji Bhuja
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal546
Pigot, J.1. We think the question referred to the Full Beach in this case must be decided in the negative; that is to say, that the decision of the High Court in the Small Cause Court Reference No. 2 of 1885 is, in our opinion, not correct. It appears to us that the terms of the proviso to Section 20 of the Limitation Act are imperative. The new period of limitation is to be computed from the time when the payment was made, provided that, in the case of part-payment of the principal of a debt, the fact of the payment appears in the hand-writing of the person making the same. Words more express, we think, could not be used. They appear to us to negative the supposition that the handwriting of another person, however authorised by him, who makes the payment, could be contemplated by that proviso. As has been said in the order of reference, it appears to us that the intention of the section must be, so far as possible, to exclude oral evidence and to substitute for it the real evidence fu...
Girijanund Datta Jha and anr. Vs. Sailajanund Datta Jha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-25-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal645
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. The suit, out of which this appeal arises, was brought by the plaintiffs appellants against the defendant Sailajanund Datta Jha, described as the ojha or high priest of the temple of Baidyanath, for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 18,279-2; and for a declaration that the said amount is realisable by attachment of the surplus of the offerings called charao made to the deity Sri Sri Iswar Baidyanath, and is recoverable from the defendant's successors in office. The main allegations, upon which the claim is based are, that the temple of Baidyanath in the town of Deoghur has from time immemorial been under the management of its ojha or high priest; that the offerings made to the deity in the shape of gifts of money and other things, called charao, were formerly divided between the high priest on the one hand and the Raja of Birbhum, and in succession to him the British Government on the other, but since the relinquishment of its share by the British Government in ...
Jhoja Singh Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal493
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the District to show cause why the order of the Sessions Judge should not be set aside on the ground that he refused to hear the pleader who was appointed to appear on behalf of the petitioner.2. It appears that in this case proceedings were taken against the petitioner, calling upon him to show cause why he should not give security for his good behaviour, and under the provisions of Section 123 of the Criminal Procedure Code the proceedings were forwarded to the Sessions Judge, as the Magistrate Considered that it was necessary to detain the person in jail for a period exceed-one year When the case came before the Sessions Judge, the learned Judge refused to hear the pleader whom the accused appointed to appear on his behalf on the ground that the law did not require the pleader to be heard under the circumstances. We think that, under the provisions of Section 340 of the Code he was bound to hear the pleader in th...
Lataful HosseIn and anr. Vs. Anunt Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal517
Trevelyan and Beverley, JJ.1. We propose to deal with the two appeals Nos. 111 and 112 of 1895 and the rules Nos. 857 and 1832 of 1895 in the same judgment.2. Appeal No. Ill of 1895 is an appeal from an order made by the District Judge of Patna on an application which, it is admitted by the learned Advocate-General, who appears for the appellant, was wholly unprecedented. The position is this : The applicants had decrees made against them in various Courts in the Patna District, some by the first, some by the second and some by the third Subordinate Judge, and one by the third Munsif. They applied to the District Judge for the appointment of a Receiver of the whole of their property, not only properties, the subject of mortgages upon which decrees had been made, and properties attached in execution of money decrees, but also other properties possessed by them, and neither the subject of suits nor under attachment. They asked for the appointment of a Receiver in respect of all these pro...
Nilmony Singh Vs. Jagabandhu Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal536
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff appellant to recover khas possession of certain immoveable property with mesne profits, and to obtain a declaration that a pottah and a kabala set up by the defendants are illegal and collusive, upon the allegation that the property constitutes the debutter of the idol Sri Sri Kalachand Jeo Thakur; that the defendant No. 6 Srimati Chota Bahira was the former sebatt of the idol; that she has been removed from the office of sebait, and the plaintiff Nilmony Singh Deo has been appointed in her place by a decree of Court, dated the 27th December 1888; and that during the time that the property was under the management of the defendant No. 6, the pottah and the kabala sought to be set aside were executed in favour of the defendants Nos. 1 to 4, or their predecessor in title by the defendant No. 6 in collusion with the defendant No. 5, her son.2. The defence was that the suit was barred by limitation; that t...
Kali Kissen Tagore Vs. Anund Chunder Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-18-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal557
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. The subject-matter of this rule is an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Madaripur, under Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declaring that the first party is entitled to exercise the right of fishery in a certain river as against the second party who claimed the julkur rights as appertaining to his zemindari, pergunnah Edilpur.2. It has been contended before us by the learned Counsel for the second party, in the first place, that a dispute concerning the right of fishery is not a dispute which falls within the scope of Section 147 of the Code; and, therefore, the Magistrate was not competent to take action in this case under that section. It has been further contended that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order that he did, because the proceeding which he had recorded under Section 147 was based upon materials which did not disclose that there was any imminent danger of a breach of the peace in consequence of the dispute r...
Tilak Chandra Sarkar and ors. Vs. Baisagomoff
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal502
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. This rule was granted for the purpose of considering the question whether the conviction in this case should be set aside, because at the time when sentence was pronounced by the Magistrate there was no judgment in existence..2. The facts appear to be that the case was tried by Mr. Weston, an Assistant Magistrate. After the evidence was adduced on both sides, the case was. fixed for argument and judgment on the 19th November. On that day, the argument was heard, and the case adjourned to the 21st for judgment. On that day, the Magistrate had not written his judgment, but he pronounced sentence, finding the accused guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code recording an order to that effect. The judgment was, however, written on the evening of the same date, the 21st.3. An appeal was preferred by the accused to the District Magistrate; and it seems to have been admitted before that officer, as appears from his judgment, that under Section 537 of the Code ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »