Kolkata Court February 1900 Judgments
Ramasory Lall Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-27-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal452
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 182 of the Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 30 and his appeal has been dismissed.2. A rule has been granted to consider the objection now raised that as the District Magistrate gave sanction to the prosecution on the police report he was not competent to hear the appeal. Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has been relied upon does not apply to this case, because the alleged offence was not committed before the District Magistrate, nor was it in contempt of his authority, nor was it brought to his notice as a Magistrate in the course of a judicial proceeding.3. The Sub-Inspector reported the information given by the petitioner by telegram to be false and to constitute an offence within the terms of Section 182 of the Penal Code. The District Magistrate on this sanctioned the prosecution of the petitioner, who admittedly gave that information. Under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Pro...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Debendra Krishna Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal587
Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The short point we have to decide is whether the document in this case ought to have been stamped under Article 44 of schedule I of the Stamp Act of 1879 or under Article 29 of that schedule.2. I am unable to agree with the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in his view that, for the purpose of ascertaining what stamp duty is payable, we are to look to the definition of a mortgage given in the Transfer of Property Act. We need not travel so far afield, for a mortgage-deed is defined by Sub-section 13 of Section 3 of the Stamp Act, and the instrument in question in this case is, in my opinion, a mortgage-deed within the meaning of that subsection. It is an instrument whereby for the purpose of securing an existing debt, the transferor transferred to or created in favour of the transferee, a right over specified property. If this be so, as I think it must, what is the stamp duty properly payable upon a mortgage deed? Article 44 of schedule I tells us...
Tag this Judgment!Anookool Chunder Nundy Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-21-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal777
Macpherson and Hill, JJ.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 485 and 486 of the Penal Code of having in his possession, (a.) instruments for the purpose of counterfeiting the trade or property mark of the Mercantile Bank of India, Limited; (6) for sale or trade a gold bar bearing a counterfeit impression of the trade or property mark of that Bank.2. It appears that, on the 14th August, the appellant's shop was searched under a search warrant issued at the instance of the Sub-Manager of the National Bank of India, who had deposed that gold bars were in circulation bearing a counterfeit of the impression on the gold bars imported by his Bank, and that the appellant was suspected of being concerned in this. Nothing was found indicating the commission of any offence in connection with the mark of that Bank, but there was found a bar of gold (Exhibit G) stamped with the words Chartered Mercantile Bank of India, London and China, in the English and Guzrati character, and other w...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Isahak and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-20-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal372
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. It is necessary to consider only one matter raised in this application for revision.2. The learned pleader contends that, inasmuch as the Appellate Court has under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure taken additional evidence, the prisoner whose appeal has been dismissed has the right of appeal to this Court. He relies on the case of Queen v. Mohesh Chander Chattopadhia (1865) 2 W.R. Cr., 13, contending that Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is in the same terms as that of Section 422 of the Code of 1861, under which that case was decided, and that consequently this Court is bound to follow that case. We observe that in addition to the case cited there is a judgment of a Full Bench,--In the matter of Ram Narain Singh (1863) Unreported,--heard on 14th October 1863 in which Peacock, C.J., Seton Karr, Louis Jackson and Elphinstone Jackson, JJ. (Kemp, J., dissenting), expressed the same opinion on the effect of Section 422 of the Code...
Tag this Judgment!Natabar Ghose Vs. Provash Chandra Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal461
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. Section 370 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that in a case such as that now before us, the Magistrate should record a brief statement of the reasons for the conviction. The Magistrate has failed to comply with the law. He has recorded no such reasons as are contemplated by Section 370. It is not sufficient for him to record that the offence is proved, for that may necessarily be implied to be his opinion from the fact that he has convicted the accused. The law contemplates something further as the reasons for the conviction. We have accordingly considered the whole case, and, although we agree with the Presidency Magistrate that the accused should be convicted, we think that he should have been convicted of theft as a servant rather than of criminal misappropriation. The error, however, is immaterial, as it has not prejudiced the accused. The rule is, therefore, discharged....
Tag this Judgment!Khan Baputi Dewan and ors. Vs. Bispati Pundit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal655
Prinsep J.1. The order in this case convicting the petitioners has been passed under Section 34 of Act V of 1861, as modified by Act VIII of 1895. It has been found that the petitioners have slaughtered a cow in an open verandah, so as to cause annoyance to the residents of that locality and in spite of their remonstrances. The learned pleader, who appears for the petitioners, contends that the slaughtering in this open verandah does not constitute a breach of the law, not being an act 'in an open place' within the terms of Section 34 as amended, and he contends that the words 'open place' coupled with road 'street,' or 'thoroughfare,' must be interpreted ejusdem generis. We are not prepared to construe the law in this limited sense. It seems to us rather that the addition of these words was intended to have a wider significance, and this seems to be shown by another amendment in the same section made at the same time, in which the annoyance, etc., caused must be not to the residents a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Goods of Amrita Lal Mullick, Deceased
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal350
Sale, J.1. I think you have made out a case for the issue of a special citation. I order that a special citation do issue to the widow, and direct that it be served personally on her and also on her father with whom she occasionally resides....
Tag this Judgment!Hari Telang and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal781
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioners have been required to give security for good behaviour and their appeal has been dismissed by the District Magistrate. They were all three tried together in the same proceedings. In consequence of this irregularity and because we had reason to believe, as represented to us, that the evidence did not justify the order, this rule has been granted to consider the case. Proceedings were taken under Section 110 on three grounds, first that the petitioners habitually commit extortion; secondly that they habitually commit or attempt to commit or abet the commission of offences, involving a breach of the peace; and third that they are dangerous persons so as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community. Although separate proceedings were drawn up in respect of each of these persons, they have been tried jointly. Objection was taken on this ground before the District Magistrate on appeal, and he held that under the terms of Section 117...
Tag this Judgment!Zamunia Vs. Ram Tahal and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal370
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. Before the case for the prosecution had closed and the accused had been called upon to enter on his defence the accused applied to the Magistrate to re-summon the witnesses for the prosecution to cross-examine them. The Magistrate refused the application in these terms: 'The prosecution witnesses have already been cross-examined at a reasonable length considering the importance of the case, and it is needless in my opinion to recall them Refused.'2. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the Magistrate no discretion in such a matter. The accused is entitled to have the witnesses recalled for purposes of cross-examination. Indeed, after a charge has been drawn up, it is the duty of the Magistrate to require the accused to state whether he wishes to cross-examine, and, if so, which of the witnesses for the prosecution whose evidence has been taken. The fact that there has been already some cross-examination, before the charge has been drawn up, doe...
Tag this Judgment!Har Kishore Dass and ors. Vs. Jugul Chunder Kabyarathna Bhuttacharjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal658
Prinsep, J.1. On a complaint made to the Magistrate he convicted one of the petitioners, Har Kishore Dass, of mischief and sentenced him to fine. On application made to the Sessions Judge he directed a further inquiry to be made by the Magistrate into another offence, viz., under Section 144 of the Penal Code in respect of Har Kishore Dass, no charge of any such offence having been made at any time against him. The Sessions Judge has also directed a further inquiry against other persons who apparently were mentioned in the complaint, but who had not been summoned to appear before the Magistrate.2. In our opinion the order of the Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction not being within the power described by Section 437. The complaint had not been dismissed under Section 203 or Sub-section (3), of Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inasmuch as on that complaint Har Kishore Dass had been convicted, nor was this a case in which any accused person had been discharged, because Ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »