Kolkata Court November 1900 Judgments
Sonaram Dass Vs. Mohiram Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal235
1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 215 which he paid for the purchase of a certain parcel of land, or, in the alternative, for the return of such portion of this sum as may be proportionate to the extent to which he alleges the consideration had failed. It appears that there was one Kali Charan Sen who obtained a decree against the father of the defendant No. 2. This decree was sold to the defendant No. 1, who applied for execution, and a certain property was sold in execution of that decree, which the plaintiff purchased for Rs. 215. The property was advertised as being 4 kattas and 1 lessa in extent, whereas in the course of a suit subsequently brought by a third person, it was established that only 13 1/2 lessas belonged to the judgment debtor and that was all that the plaintiff had purchased at the execution-sale.2. The plaintiff now sues to have the sale set aside and the purchase money returned to him.3. The first Court held that as there had not b...
Tag this Judgment!Reasut Vs. Courtney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal423
1. In this matter a Rule was issued on the District Magistrate to show cause, why the sentence should not be modified on the ground that this was a very trifling theft, and that, so far as appears from the record, it was the petitioner's first offence.2. The trial before the Deputy Magistrate was summary, but the age of the accused, who is a mere boy, has not been found. He is stated to have been found abstracting a piece of coal from a waggon, the value of which is said to be about six pies. The trying Magistrate, as already observed, without finding what the age of the boy was and without stating whether, in his opinion, he was a proper person to be an inmate of the Reformatory School, sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one month and in lieu thereof directed that he be detained in the School for four years. The evidence recorded is extremely slight. There is nothing to show that the petitioner was ever before convicted or what his antecedents are, and we certainly think that ...
Tag this Judgment!Karu Kalal Vs. Ram Charan Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1900
Reported in: (1901)ILR28Cal10
Pratt, J.1. The petitioner was with another person convicted under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, of dishonestly retaining some stolen tea which they had received from one Latna, who was tried jointly with them, and convicted of an offence under Section 381, Indian Penal Code.2. It is urged that the joint trial of a person charged under Section 411 with a person charged under Section 381 is necessarily void, and the conviction bad. The case of Bishnu Banwar v. Empress (1896) 1 C.W.N. 35 seems to support this contention. It has, however, been very recently held by a Full Bench in In the matter of Abdur Bahman (1900) 20 I.L.R. Cal. 839 that misjoinder of charges is not fatal to the proceedings, but that it is an irregularity which requires that the Court should consider whether, under the terms of Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code, it has in fact occasioned a failure of justice. The same rule must, we think, be applied in a case of misjoinder of parties like the present one.3. No obj...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›