Kolkata Court January 1902 Judgments
Mangan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal379
Stevens and Harington, JJ.1. In this case it is clear that there was a misdirection on the part of the learned Judge to the Jury, in that he did not comply with the provisions of Section 297 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires that the Judge shall lay down the law by which the Jury are to be guided. What the learned Judge says is 'the accused are charged with offences under Sections 147, 323 with 149, 325 with 149, and 304 with 149. The law bearing on the case has been placed before you more than once in the addresses delivered by the learned pleaders on either side. I need not go into detail as to the law therefor.'2. It is immateral how much or how often the Jury may have been addressed by the pleaders on both sides upon the law. The responsibility of laying down the law for the guidance of the Jury rested entirely with the Judge, and the verdict arrived at by the Jury in the absence of any such direction on the law by which they should be guided cannot be accepted as a va...
Tag this Judgment!Bhugwan Chunder Kritiratna Vs. Chundra Mala Gupta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal773
Chose and Brett, JJ.1. The subject matter of this rule is an order of the Subordinate Judge of Tipperah, dated the 9th September 1899, calling for the record of a certain execution case from the file of the Munsiff of Brahmanbaria for the purpose of rateable distribution of the sale proceeds of a certain property, amongst certain decree-holders, one of the decree-holders being a person, who had obtained a decree in his (the Subordinate Judge's) Court, as also a subsequent order of the 19th February 1900 of the same officer determining the question of rateable distribution and ordering that certain of the decree-holders in the Brahmanbaria Munsiff's Court, who had, under the orders of the Munsiff, dated the 5th January 1900, taken out certain sums in excess of the amounts properly due to them, should refund the excess amount.2. It appears that in execution of a certain decree or decrees, in the Munsiff s Court of Brahmanbaria, certain property belonging to the judgment-debtor, Ambica Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Nund Kishore Lal Vs. Kanee Ram Tewary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-10-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal355
Maclean, C.J.1. This is a suit by a mortgagee to enforce a mortgage for Rs. 3,000, and the suit is defended, not by the mortgagor himself, but by a subsequent purchaser from him, that is to say, subsequent in point of date to the mortgage. The properties mortgaged were an entire mauza called Tutlo, and an eight annas' share in a mauza called Atakora, and the mortgage is dated the 16th of August 1890. The Court below has decided in favour of the plaintiff, the mortgagee; and although our attention has not been directed to the precise terms of the decree passed, it was, I take it, an ordinary mortgage decree.2. The mortgagor, as I have stated, has not defended the suit, but the purchaser has, and he is the present appellant, and various points have been raised by him in support of his present appeal. His first point is that the execution of the mortgage has not been properly proved; secondly, that as regards mauza Atakora, in which the mortgagor had in possession an eight annas' share on...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Horace Lyall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal286
Maclean, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Stevens sitting in the exercise of the original criminal jurisdiction of the High Court to hear an application by the prisoner under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an application by which he asks that he should be brought up before the Court to be dealt with according to law, and that he should be set at liberty. Mr. Justice Stevens refused the application; hence the present appeal.2. The circumstances under which the application was made are set out in the affidavit of the petitioner, dated the 9th December 1901, which is as follows:1. That on the 2nd day of December instant, on the hearing of a reference from the Deputy Commissioner of Nowgong, I was sentenced by the High Court of Judicature at Fort 'William in Bengal in its Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›