Kolkata Court November 1898 Judgments
Bachu Lal Vs. Jagdam Sahai and Three ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal181
Stevens and Pratt, JJ.1. In dismissing a case under Section 363 of the Penal Code the Joint Magistrate of. Hajipur directed the complainant Bachu Lal to pay each of the four accused persons Rs. 40 as compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further ordered his prosecution on a charge under Section 211 of the Penal Code.2. The learned Sessions Judge of Tirhoot has reported the case to this Court with a recommendation that the order for payment of compensation be set aside, and he refers for authority to the case of Shib Nath Chong v. Sarat Chunder Sarkar (1895) I.L.R., 22 Cal., 586.3. In the case of Queen v. Rupan Rai (1871) 6 B.L.R., 296:15 W.B., Cr., 9, which is referred to by the Joint Magistrate in his explanation as supporting the legality of his proceedings, Jackson, J., remarked: 'It appears to me that in this case the Magistrate was competent to award compensation to the persons accused by Rupan, notwithstanding that he afterwards committed, and even ...
Tag this Judgment!The Rivers Steam Navigation Company Vs. Choutmull Doogar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-17-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal398
Morris, J.1. Their Lordships do not require to hear Counsel in support of the decision of the High Court, as they are of opinion that there has been no case shown to alter the judgment that was pronounced by that Court.2. It appears that the jute in question was put on board the appellants' vessel, and put on board, so far as can be ascertained, in a proper manner in a proper flat, properly arranged, and under proper circumstances. It appears that upon the night in question, about half-past twelve, from some rather incomprehensible cause or other, the jute caught fire, and the whole cargo was burnt.3. The plaintiffs do not rely upon any special construction of the forwarding note other than that which is relied upon by the defendants, who contend that they have brought themselves within the protection of the Carriers' Act; that is, that they are exempt, if they satisfy the onus which is imposed upon them of showing that there was no negligence on their part.4. The plaintiffs have also ...
Tag this Judgment!Bajoo Singh Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-1898
Reported in: (1899)ILR26Cal158
Stevens and Pratt, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case was convicted under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code of voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions. The officer obstructed in the present case was a surveyor employed by the Collector in the khas mehal department, and the functions in which he was obstructed were making a survey of a certain portion of a water-course which was in dispute. It has been contended before us that a distinction must be drawn between the Government in the exercise of its functions as a proprietor of an estate and in that of its duties of general administration, and that looking, to the definition of the word 'Government' in Section 17 of the Indian Penal Code, the surveyor obstructed in the present case was not a servant of the Government. In support of this contention, two cases have, been cited to us, Beg. v. Ramajirav (1875) 12 Bom. H.C., 1.. Chatter Lal v. Thacoor Pershad (1891) I.L.R., 18 Cal., 518. Neither of...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›