Kolkata Court September 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.
Ali Fakir Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-23-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal230
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. The appellant in this case was tried by jury before the Sessions Court of Dacca on charges of rape and assault to outrage female modesty, punishable under Sections 376 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the learned Sessions Judge accepting the verdict has sentenced the accused to transportation for life. Against this finding and sentence the accused has appealed; and the appeal lies on a matter of law only (see Section 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) and also on the question of the seventy of the sentence which, as the section just referred to provides, is to be deemed a matter of law. Clause (d) of Section 423 further provides: ' Nothing hereinafter contained shall authorize the Court to alter or reverse the verdict of a jury unless it is of opinion that such verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him,' Therefore, b...
Durga Charan Mali Vs. NobIn Chandra Sil
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-21-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal274
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. Upon the facts found by the Joint Magistrate himself, the provisions of Sections 26 and 27 of the Village Chaukidari Act Benga Act VI of 1870) had not been complied with, and the chaukidar had no authority to attach the properly in question. Resistance to the attachment by him cannot, therefore, we think, constitute an offence under Section 183 of the Indian Penal Code. This view is to some extent supported by the case of Abdool Gaffur v. Queen-Empress (1896) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 896.We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence, and order refund of the fine if it has been realized....
Nabi Baksh Alias Ali Baksh Sheikh Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal416
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. The appellant Nabi Baksh alias Ali Baksh Sheikh was tried before the Sessions Court of Murshidabad for the offence of theft committed by him while he was a servant of the complainant, and committed after two previous convictions. He was found guilty by the jury and he admitted two previous convictions; and be has been sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 381 and 75 of the Indian Penal Code.2. He has appealed against the conviction and sentence; and the trial having been by the jury, the appeal lies only on a matter of law (see Section 418 of the Criminal Procedure Code); and this Court can alter or reverse the verdict, only if it is of opinion that the verdict is erroneous owing to a misdirection by the Judge or to a misunderstanding on the part of the jury of the law as laid down by him. [see Section 423, Clause (d)].3. We are of opinion that the verdict of the jury in this case is erroneous owing to mis...
Queen-empress Vs. Beni Madhav Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-12-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal275
Banerjee and Wilkins, JJ.1. We think the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in this case is in the main correct. The accused has been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Serajgunge of an offence punishable under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50, and he has been ordered to remove within three days the obstruction complained of. But all that the learned Magistrate in his judgment has found against the accused is that he has blocked up altogether by a gate a road which, in his opinion, is a public road. This finding is not in our opinion sufficient to sustain the conviction. To warrant a conviction under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code for causing obstruction in a public way, it must be established that the act of the accused has caused 'danger, obstruction, or injury ' to some person; see Empress v. Ram Singh (1882) 11 C. L. R. 462 and Queen v. Khader Moidin (1881) I.L.R. 4 Mad. 235. But there is no finding to that effect in ...
K. M. Butt Vs. F. C. K. Butt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal222
Ameer Ali, J.1. This was a wife's petition for dissolution of her marriage on the ground of the respondent's cruelty and adultery. A commission was taken out to examine witnesses in England, and the result of their evidence is that the petitioner is satisfied that the charge of adultery brought by her against the husband was wholly unfounded. She therefore applied to withdraw the suit, and by consent an order was made to that effect on the 2nd September instant. I, however, reserved for consideration the question of the principle on which the petitioner's costs to be paid by the respondent should be taxed. On her side it has been argued that the costs should be taxed as between attorney and client. On the respondent's side it has been urged that they should be taxed as between party and party. So far as can be gathered from the reports this is the first case in which the question has been expressly raised in this country, and as it involves a principle of some importance it is necessar...
Sarna Moyee Bewa Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal254
Maclean, C.J. and Banerjee, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for letters of administration to the estate of Sahachari Bewa by the appellant, who claims to be her sister and only heir. The application was opposed by the Secretary of State for India, who alleged that the deceased Sahachari Bewa was a woman of the town, that the petitioner was not her heir, and that the estate of the deceased had escheated to the Crown.2. The Court below has disallowed the application, holding that the sister was no heir to the property of a woman under the Bengal School of Hindu law, and that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that the petitioner was the sister of Sahachari.3. The petitioner has preferred this appeal against that decision, and it is contended on her behalf, first, that the learned Judge below is wrong in holding that the sister is no heir to a woman's property; and secondly, that the learned Judge below is wrong in holding that the evidence is insufficient to prove the...
Bindubashini Chaudhurani and anr. Vs. Srimati Jahnavi Chaudhurani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-06-1897
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.150
1. We are asked to hold that the plaintiff was not dispossessed of immoveable property within the meaning of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) and consequently that the Munsif had no power under that section to give her a decree for possession.2. The suit related to about 800 bighas of chur land and the facts found are that that land was in the occupation of persons who were cultivating it as the tenants of the plaintiff to whom the rent was paid, and that the defendants' men forcibly drove all those tenants of the land and took possession of it for the defendants. On these facts the Munsif found that the plaintiff had been dispossessed.3. The dispossessed tenants are not parties to the suit. It is argued that the section only applies to cases in which there was an actual bodily possession of which the plaintiff was deprived and it is said that the only persons who could have maintained a suit under the section to recover possession of this land were the tenants who had ...
Abdool Latif Moonshi and anr. Vs. Jadub Chandra Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal216
Ameer Ali, J.1. It appears that on the 6th of January 1896 the holding of the appellant, who is a raiyat, was sold in execution of a decree obtained by his landlord, respondent in this Court, for arrears of rent, and was purchased by the latter on the 3rd of February. The appellant deposited in Court, under the provisions of Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the amount recoverable under the decree, with costs and a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase-money. On the 7th of February the decree-holder presented an application to the Munsif, stating that the judgment-debtor had deposited 9 pies too little, and praying that the sale be confirmed, whereupon the Court ordered that the judgment-debtor might apply to have the sale set aside. The Court did not express any opinion whether the statement made in the decree-holder's petition that the amount deposited was short by 9 pies was correct or not. From the form of the order it would seem that the Munsif did not consider it well f...
Jogesh Chunder Patitunda and anr. Vs. Rohini Kumar Roy Chowdhry and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1897
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.215
Francis Maclean, C.J.1. There are three questions for decision in this appeal. Upon the question whether the plaintiff is estopped by the statements in his petition, which is set out at page 28 of the paper-book, I have felt some little doubt upon the point, but on the whole I do not think that the statements are sufficiently precise to prevent the plaintiff from saying now that he has a protected interest in this osut taluk.2. Upon the question whether the records in the attachment proceedings, Exhibits 156 to 58, are admissible as evidence in this case as against the defendants, I think that if the plaintiff can show that there has been a possession in accordance with the recitals in those documents, a possession consistent with them, then the documents, as ancient recorded documents, would be admissible.3. Then upon the question, which is the main question in the case, namely, upon whom the onus of proof lies, I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Court below. The plaintif...
Kedar Nath Bose and ors. Vs. Prohlad Teor and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1897
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal302
Maclean, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue to recover from the defendants certain plots of land, a portion of which is covered with water. The defence was that these plots and expanse of water were included in a certain lease from the zemindar who is a defendant in the case, and who is a common lessor both of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It has been found as a fact by the lower Court that these plots of land and expanse of water are not included in the defendants' lease. That being so, the defendants fall back upon the contention that these plots belonged to their zemindar, the zemindar who was their lessor; that they have encroached upon these plots of their landlord, and that having so encroached upon his lands they are entitled to be treated as between themselves and their landlord as his tenants, not only of the land originally included in the lease, but also of this land and expanse of water upon which they have encroached.2. That no doubt is their present contention, a...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »