Kolkata Court February 1902 Judgments

Emperor Vs. Mathura Prasad

Court: Kolkata

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The object of the reference seems doubtful. The Subdivisional Magistrate, who is also Chairman of the Municipality, has in one order convicted the accused under Section 273 (1) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1884, and, in addition to sentence, has, as Chairman, in the same order directed the demolition of the addition made to his house. The act condemned is the commencement of a second storey without permission. We can find no necessity for such permission. The Building Regulations, Section 236 et seq, relate to building or rebuilding a house. The previous sections relating to alteration of a house contemplate obstruction or encroachments on roads. This is not the ground of objection. We do not therefore see how the case comes within Section 273 (1). Consequently we set aside the whole order. The fine, if paid, will be refunded....

AlimuddIn Howladar Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal392

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. This Rule must be made absolute. Although the law does not expressly provide for a case such as the present, which is under Section 110, Chapter VIII of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the same manner as Section 191 declares the course to be taken when a Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence upon his own knowledge or suspicion, still the principle holds good that no man ought to be a judge in his own cause. In the proceeding in which action was taken under Section 110 the Magistrate records:Whereas it appears from the report of Babu Kristo Chandra Chandra, Sub-Inspector, Bhandaria, also from my knowledge of previous cases, that the above-mentioned persons have been habitually committing offences involving a breach of the peace, etc., and they are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large without security hazardous to the community, they are called upon to show cause why they should not be bound over for their good behaviour.2. The M...

Kinoo Sheikh Vs. Darastullah Mollah

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal393

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The Subordinate Magistrate convicted the petitioner of theft in cutting and carrying away crops belonging to the complainant. The District Magistrate, on appeal, expresses himself thusThe Lower Court decides rightly on the oral evidence that the complainant was in possession. I agree with his finding and support the conviction. The appeal is dismissed.2. From this we understand that the Appellate Court considers that the petitioner has been properly convicted and sentenced for theft. But the Magistrate on appeal thought proper to add to his judgment an order under Section 106 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, binding over the petitioner to keep the peace. He is not competent to do so except on an express finding that the petitioner has committed an offence within the terms of Section 106; and inasmuch as there is no such express finding by him, but he merely affirms the conviction of theft passed by the Court of first instance, his order under Section 106 is...

Bishu Shaik Vs. Saber Mollah

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal409

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The Rule must be made absolute. In this case the petition of complaint stated that the accused with others to the number of some 90 or 100 armed with swords and other deadly weapons came upon the complainant's land and, in spite of his remonstrances, threatened him and cut his paddy.2. The Magistrate in examining the complainant recorded merely the fact that the complainant stated that his paddy had been cut by the persons accused by him, and he accordingly issued processes for the attendance of the accused to answer charges of offences under Sections 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, both of which offences are triable summarily. A summary trial was thereupon held and the accused has been convicted.3. We have no doubt that on the facts before the Magistrate the offences complained of were not triable summarily. The petition of complaint discloses the commission of a much more serious offence than the offences for which the Magistrate has held a summary tr...

Chemon Garo Vs. Emperor

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal415

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. The appellant was accused by a husband of rape of his wife, and at the Sessions trial he has been convicted of adultery. The two offences are obviously different. Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure declares that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, that is, of adultery, except m on the complaint of the husband of the woman, &c.; The husband is no doubt a witness, but ho has never made such complaint. The conviction is therefore without jurisdiction. The case is on all fours with that of Empress v. Kallu (1882) I. L. R. 5 All. 233., in which Straight J. expressed himself in the following terms:I do not think that the circumstances of his (the husband's) appearing as a witness in the prosecution of that offence can be regarded as amounting to the institution of a complaint for adultery in the sense of Section 478 (now Section 199 of the Code of 1898). The expression 'complaint' is a perfectly well-u...

HosseIn Sardar Vs. Kalu Sardar

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal481

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. In this case the accused was summoned for offences under Sections 143 and 379 of the Penal Code. A charge was, however, drawn up only for the offence under Section 379, but, nevertheless, the petitioner has been convicted only of an offence under Section 143. A Rule has been granted to consider whether, no charge having been framed under Section 143 and the only charge being under Section 379, the conviction and sentenoe are not bad. The Magistrate in his explanation attempts to support his order on the ground that an offence under Section 143 being triable as a summons case, no charge was necessary. But we think that when a case is being tried as a warrant case and a charge is drawn of a offence, which is triable as a warrant case, if it is intended to proceed against the accused also for an offence which is triable only as a summons case, that offence should form part of the charge. The case of the accused, however, is that no charge has been drawn of the o...

Keshwar Lal Shaha Vs. Girish Chunder Dutt

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal496

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. After consideration we think that this Rule should be discharged. The question raised is as to the application to this case of Queen-Empress v. Harridas San (1890) I. L. R. 17 Calc. 566., in which it was held that a servant who handed liquor in the presence of his master which had been sold contrary to his license could not be properly convicted of the sale, which was a sale by his master, and was merely a mechanical act of handing the liquor to the purchaser In the present case the servant received the money for ganja sold by his master in contravention of the terms of his license, master and servant both being present at the sale. The Sessions Judge on appeal has apparently convicted the servant of abetment by the application of Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which is, by Section 40 as amended, extended to offences under special laws, such as the Excise Act.' But, as has been held in another case, Section 114 would not apply unless the person present...

Lokenath Shah Chowdhry Vs. Nedu Biswas

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1902)ILR29Cal382

Prinsep and Stephen, JJ.1. In the matter before us a Subordinate Magistrate passed an order under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure attaching certain lands, the subject-matter of proceedings under Section 145, and in management of this property granted a lease. The District Magistrate has cancelled this lease and made another arrangement. We are required by this rule to consider whether the District Magistrate acted without jurisdiction. It is necessary also to consider whether this Court has jurisdiction to act as a Court of Revision in such a matter, and if so, whether it should 16 so, having regard to the circumstances of the case.2. The law permits the intervention of a Magistrate in a dispute concerning the possession of land only to prevent a breach of the peace. Any order that he may pass declaring or maintaining the possession of one of the parties to the dispute is operative until the party in whose favour it is made is 'evicted therefrom in due course of law (Sect...