Kolkata Court January 1898 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.
Surja Kurmi Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal555
Hill and Stevens, JJ.1. The appellant was committed to the Court of Session for trial on the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 240 of the Indian Penal Code. At the sessions the case was tried by a jury, which by a majority of four to one found the appellant not guilty and returned a verdict accordingly.2. The learned Sessions Judge records that he was about to refer the case to this Court under the provisions of Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when it was brought to his notice that the case was triable, not by a jury, but with the aid of assessors.3. The course which the Sessions Judge then adopted was to treat the verdict of the jury as the opinions of assessors and to record a judgment convicting the appellant under Section 241 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to be rigorously imprisoned for two years.4. The appellant has now appealed against the conviction so had.5. We are of opinion that the conviction, as it stands, cannot be s...
Makbool Ahmed Chowdhry Vs. Bazle Sabhan Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal609
Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the decree-bolder, who is also the purchaser at the sale held in execution of the decree, against an order setting aside a sale under Section 310A of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that after the sale had taken place, the judgment-debtor applied to the office of the Munsif for the purpose of ascertaining the exact sum that he had to pay in satisfaction of the decree in accordance with the provisions of Section 310A; and an account was prepared by the execution moburir shewing the amount payable by the judgment-debtor, and that account was signed by the Munsif. The judgment-debtor paid in the amount which was shewn in the account, and the Munsif subsequently set aside the sale in accordance with Section 310A.2. It has been contended, however, by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the amount that was deposited by the judgment-debtor was not in compliance with the requirements of Section 310A, and he has argued that it was necessary, befor...
Ram Chandra Mistry Vs. NobIn Mirdha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-03-1898
Reported in: (1898)ILR25Cal630
Hill and Wilkins, JJ.1. The material facts of this case are as follows:2. In October 1896 Ram Chandra Mistry, the petitioner in this matter, charged four persons, Nobin Mirdha, Mohesh Mondal, Rajkishore Manbhi and Latim Shil (the opposite party), before the Deputy Magistrate of Ferozepore with offences under Sections 147, 148 and 326 of the Penal Code, alleging inter alia that they with some fifty or sixty armed men had forcibly deprived him of possession of certain land held by him as the tenant of one Lokenath. On the 21st December 1896, the Deputy Magistrate found two of the four accused persons guilty of the offence of rioting under Section 147, the other two of the offence of rioting being armed with a deadly weapon under Section 148, and Nobin Mirdha he further found guilty of an offence under Section 326; and he sentenced them accordingly to various terms of imprisonment. He at the same time made an order under Section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the restoration of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›