Kolkata Court October 1897 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.
Choa Lal Dass Vs. Anant Pershad Misser
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-29-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal233
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. We are asked to set aside the proceedings in this case including the charge that had been framed against the petitioner, on the ground that upon the facts stated by the complainant, the trespass, which is the offence complained of, was not criminal trespass, and could only be civil trespass, if trespass it could be called; and in support of the contention that we ought to interfere in this case, three cases have been referred to, namely, Ishur Chunder Karmokar v. Seetul Dass Mitter (1872) 17 W. R. Cr. 47, Shumbhu Nath Sarkar v. Ram Kamal Guha (1883) 13 C. L. R. 212 and Chandi Pershad v. Abdur Rahman (1894) I.L.R. 22 Cal. 131.2. The first question that arises for consideration is whether we ought to interfere at this stage of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends upon the authority of the last mentioned case that we ought to interfere.3. No doubt we have the power to interfere in any case and at any stage of it; and we quite assent to the ...
Queen-empress Vs. Har Chandra Chowdhury and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-23-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal440
Banerjee, J.1. The petitioners were called upon by the Deputy Magistrate of Mymen singh under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to show cause why the bond executed by them as sureties for Ram Kant Chango and Hara Charan Chango keeping the peace for one year should not be forfeited, and why they should not each pay the amount of the bond (Rs. 100), when the said Rama Kanta Chango and Hara Charan Chango had been convicted of an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners showed cause, but their objections were overruled, and the Deputy Magistrate without recording any evidence declared on the 7th May 1897 that the bonds were forfeited; and that order was affirmed on appeal by the Magistrate of the district on the 27th of June 1897, with this modification, that the amount forfeited in each case was reduced to Rs. 50.2. The learned Sessions Judge of the District recommends that the orders of the District Magistrate and the Deputy Magistrate be reversed f...
Makund Ram and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-19-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal432
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. The accused have been convicted under Section 4 of Bengal Act II of 1867 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each. The learned Sessions Judge recommends that the conviction and sentence be set aside on the ground that the house in which the accused were found is not shewn to be a common gaming house within the meaning of Section 1 of the Act.2. To sustain a conviction under Section 4 of the Act, no doubt two thing have to be established, first, that the accused were found gambling, an (sic) second, that the place where they were found was a common gaming house within the meaning of the Act. The first is clearly established as has be (sic) found in the judgment of the Magistrate. As to the second, the mere fact (sic) gambling having taken place in the house on previous occasions was not, (sic) the Magistrate appears to think, sufficient to make it a common gaming (sic) house within the meaning of the Act, as the condition that it must be (sic) 'for the prof...
Preonath Dey and ors. Vs. Gobordhone Malo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal278
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. This is a rule calling upon the Magistrate of the district to show cause why the order complained of in this case should not be set aside upon the ground that the Magistrate who made it had no authority to investigate the matter and to make the conditional order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer absolute.2. The order complained of is one passed by a second class Magistrate under Section 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making absolute an order under Section 133 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer for the removal of certain obstructions caused by the petitioners in a place which was alleged to be a public thoroughfare.3. The grounds upon which we are asked by the learned Vakil for the petitioner to set aside the order are: first, that the Magistrate who made the conditional order absolute under Section 137 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had no authority to do so as he was a Magistrate with second class powers; and, secondly, that he had no author...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›