Kolkata Court March 1900 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.
Abhi Misser and ors. Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal566
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The five persons concerned in the matter before us were convicted by the Magistrate of various offences under the Penal Code, and sentenced to separate sentences of one month's rigorous imprisonment for each of such offences. On appeal to the Sessions Judge, all these persons have been acquitted of every offence except one. It is not clear from the terms of the Sessions Judge's judgment, whether he affirmed the conviction of this offence as under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code, or under Section 114 of abetment of an offence under Section 325. But we are inclined to think that he convicted the persons now before us of the last-mentioned offence. The Sessions Judge, after dealing with the appeals in this manner, referred the matter to this Court in revision for enhancement of the sentences so remaining, that is of rigorous imprisonment for one month in reference to each of these persons, because he considered that these sentences were inade...
Durga Charan Jemadar and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal457
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The petitioners have been convicted, Durga Jemadar under Sections 353, 225B, 143 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, and Hari Manjhi under Sections 143, 341 and 225B, of the Indian Penal Code, and their offences may be shortly described as rescuing four persons who had been arrested and otherwise obstructing the execution of the warrant of arrest.2. The only point for our consideration in this ease is whether the warrant was being rightly executed so as to make the arrest lawful and the obstruction thereto an offence. The warrant was addressed to the Court Sub-Inspector, and it was by an order in writing, signed by the Court Head-Constable, endorsed for execution by Churai Nath, and Guana Nath, and these two persons made the arrest which led to the occurrence constituting the offences of which the petitioners have been convicted.3. It was contended both before the Magistrate and before the Sessions Judge in appeal that the execution of the warrant by these pers...
Ram Krishna Biswas Vs. Mohendra Nath Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal565
Prinsep and Stanley, JJ.1. The petitioner has been required under a Rule of the District Board of Nuddia having the force of law and on conviction of an offence within its, terms to pay a daily fine of one rupee, until the encroachment constituting the offence shall have been removed.2. A rule has been granted to consider the order regarding the daily fine. There are several reported cases of this Court on the subject, and it has been held that an order for payment of a daily fine is illegal, inasmuch as it is an adjudication in respect of an offence which had not bean committed when such order was passed. We may refer to the ease of Sagar Dutt (1868) 1 B.L.R., O. Cr., 41, as well as to the cases of W.N. Love (1872) 18 W.R. Order 44, and of Kristodhone Dutt v. Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners of the Suburbs of Calcutta (1876) 25 W.R. Cr., 6, as authorities for this. We do not propose to follow the case of Sagar Dutt in which the order was passed under a special Act in regard to ...
Ganga Das Seal Vs. Yakub Ali Dobashi and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1900
Reported in: (1900)ILR27Cal670
Macpherson and Stevens, JJ.1. Abdul Rahaman, having obtained a decree for money against the appellant, died before the decree was executed. Fazal Rahaman, the administrator of his estate, put the decree in execution and then transferred it by assignment in writing to Yakub Ali Dobashi, who applied to have his name put on the record as decree-holder and to execute the decree. The Munsif on the appellant's objection rejected the application, holding on the evidence adduced by the parties that the alleged transfer was a sham and collusive transaction. Yakub Ali Dobashi appealed, and District Judge, finding that there was a good transfer for consideration, reversed the Munsif's order and allowed the application.2. This appeal is preferred by the judgment-debtor against the order of the District Judge, and his contention is that the Judge acted without jurisdiction in reversing the Munsif's order, as there was no right of appeal Against that order.3. We think this contention fails. In our o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›