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.
Raghu Singh and anr. Vs. Abdul Wahab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal442
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. The petitioners in this case have been ordered by Mr. Lloyd, Deputy Magistrate of Purneah, who is a Magistrate exercising second-class powers, to pay the sum of Rs. 44-4 as compensation to a certain person, named Abdul Wahab, for the illegal seizure of his cattle. This order has been passed under Section 22 of Act I of 1871. The petitioners have obtained a rule to show cause why this order should not be set aside, on the ground that the Deputy Magistrate was vested with only second-class powers, and was consequently not competent to make the order passed by him.2. Section 20 of Act I of 1871, as amended by Act I of 1891, authorizes a person, whose cattle have been seized under the Act, to make a complaint within ten days to the Magistrate of the District, or to any Magistrate authorized to receive and try charges without reference by the Magistrate of the District; and Section 22 provides that, if the seizure or detention be adjudged illegal, the Magistrate sha...
Mahomed Bhakku Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal532
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This case has been transferred to this Bench by two orders, one made by the Division Bench taking criminal cases and the other by the Chief Justice. It is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate 'to show cause why sanction to prosecute in this case should not be withdrawn, upon the ground that such general sanction under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code is unauthorized, and also upon the ground that sanction ought not to have been given without making a preliminary enquiry.'2. The facts of the case are shortly these:A suit for rent was instituted by the petitioner before us against one Mussumut Mitu and others in the Court of the Second Munsif of Kissengunge in the course of which a vakalatnama and a written statement, purporting to have been signed by the defendants, was filed in Court. The Munsif found that they had never been signed by the defendant on whose behalf they appeared to have been put in. The written statement in question contained...
Madhub Lall Durgur Vs. WoopendranaraIn Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal573
Sale, J.1. I must, I think, adhere to the opinion I have already expressed. In my opinion no ground has' been shown for a review of the order rescinding the leave granted to the defendant to appear and defend. As regards the question of limitation, I still think that the only possible date to which I can refer is the date of the service of summons as shown in the Sheriff's return. From the statement made in the petition, the proper inference is that service of the summons was effected on the 5th of January, and that the period of limitation in respect of the application to appear and defend began to run from that date. I do' not think that the situation is altered by the fact that on the plaintiff's application to rescind the order giving the defendant leave to appear and defend the defendant came prepared to show that there had been, in fact, on service of summons at all. The proper time to determine questions of limitation relative to ex parte applications is when the application is ...
Abdul Khaliq Ahmed Alias Konai Mia and ors. Vs. Abdul Khaliq Chowdhry ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal514
Banerjee and Gordon, JJ.1. This was a suit for partition of some of the lands of four estates bearing Nos. 2, 3, 7 and 15 on the rent roll of the Sylhet Collectorate, being the lands held and owned by the parties to the suit. The other lands of those four estates are not included in this suit, being lands in which the parties to this suit are stated to be interested jointly with certain other persons not before us. And the plaintiffs said in their plaint that they only asked for a division of the lands without any division of the Government revenue.2. The defendants, amongst other objections, urged that the suit could not proceed, as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try a suit of this description under the provisions, of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, and that the suit could? not proceed for the further reason that other lands which are also jointly held by the parties had not been included in the suit.3. The Court below has given effect to these two objections, and it ha...
Upendra Nath Bhuttacharjee Vs. Khitish Chandra Bhuttacharjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal499
Hill and Rampini, JJ.1. This rule was granted in relation to certain proceedings taken by the District Magistrate of Nuddea under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The order of the Magistrate of the 13th November 1895 made in these proceedings has been called in question here on several grounds, but we think that for the present purpose it is enough for us to say that it is bad, on the ground that the jury appointed by the Magistrate under Section 138 of the Code was not legally constituted. Two of the jurors were the nominees of the party opposed to the petitioner in the proceedings before the Magistrate; two were the nominees of the petitioner; the foreman being the nominee of the Magistrate. The section requires the Magistrate to nominate the foreman and one-half of the remaining members of the jury, which it is his duty under that section to appoint when the occasion arises. In the nomination of those members of the jury, the nomination of whom devolves upon the Magist...
Girish Myte and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1896
Reported in: (1896)ILR23Cal420
Ghose and Rampini, JJ.1. We think that this rule must be made absolute and the accused acquitted and discharged on the ground that there is no evidence in this case that the complainant had committed any offence, and that consequently the accused cannot be held to have rendered themselves answerable to the provisions of Section 213 of the Penal Code. That section would seem to be applicable only when it is proved that the person screened or attempted to be screened from legal punishment has been guilty of an offence and not when there is, as in this case, merely a suspicion of his having committed some offence. This has been laid down by the Madras High Court in the case of Queen-Empress v. Saminatha I.L.R. 14 Mad. 400, which deals with a case under the cognate-section 214. We therefore make this rule absolute.2. We would add that the judgment of the Sessions Judge in this case is not in accordance with the law. We call his attention to the provisions of section; 367 of the Criminal Pr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›