Kolkata Court April 1904 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.
Emperor Vs. Arjan Pramanik
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal664
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Local Government against an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Pubna dated the 3rd November last, acquitting Arjan Pramanik and Nirjan Pramanik. The. Deputy Magistrate, without considering the case on its merits, acquitted the accused on the ground that there was no sanction as required by law.2. In the first place we may observe that the charges under Sections 352 and 353 are not such as require any sanction and as regards the charge under Section 183 it is clear on the proceedings of the Munsiff, who initiated the prosecution, that he was expressly acting under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore it was incumbent upon the Deputy Magistrate under Clause (2) of that section to proceed with the case according to law as if upon a complaint made and recorded under Section 200.3. We accordingly set aside the order of acquittal in question and send the case back to the Deputy Magistrate to be disposed of upon the merits....
Emperor Vs. Luchmun Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal710
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. Luchmun Singh, Head constable, was placed upon his trial before the District Magistrate of Puri on charges under Sections 213, 347 and 202 of the Indian Penal Code. With him were tried two chowkidars against whom charges were framed under Sections 341 and 213/109, in the result Luchmun Singh was convicted of the charge under Section 213 and acquitted of the other charges. With the result of the trial of the chowkidars we are not at present concerned.On appeal by Luchmun Singh the learned Sessions Judge held that the conviction under Section 213 was not sustainable; because it was based merely upon the statements of, the co-accused and upon the inadmissible statement of the deceased Krupa Sahu, He, however, directed a retrial of both charges, viz., under Sections 847 and 213 on the following grounds:(1) that the charge of wrongful confinement, of which accused had been acquitted, related to the alleged confinement at the Krishna proshad outpost, whereas the Magi...
Purna Chandra Chakravarti Vs. Sarojini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-27-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1065
Henderson, J.1. This is a suit for the partition of the estate of Netai Chand Chakravarti, a Hindu governed by the Bengal School of Hindu Law, who died on the 28th October 1901.2. It is admitted that the estate of the deceased which it is sought to partition was acquired by him under the will of his only son, Bhola Nath Chakravarti, who predeceased him, leaving a widow the defendant Bechumonee. Bholanath had two sons--Charu Chandra and the plaintiff, Burna Chandra Chakravarti. Charu Chandra also predeceased Netai Chand Chakravarti, leaving a widow, the defendant Sarojini Debi, and a son, the defendant Dhirendra Nath Chakravarti. Netai Chand Chakravarti left a widow, the defendant Bissessuri Debi.3. The plaint and written statements filed contain charges and countercharges which need not be discussed. The only question raised at this stage--a question not raised in the pleadings--is whether the defendants Bissessuree Debi and Bechumonee Debi or either of them are or is entitled on a par...
Manmatha Nath Mitter Vs. Baroda Prosad Roy Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-26-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal685
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. The question which arises on this rule is whether the order of the Deputy Magistrate of Diamond Harbour declaring the possession of the second party ought to be set aside because he refused to examine some seven -witnesses of the first party, who were present both on the 27th and 28th January. That the District Magistrate distinctly refused to examine the witnesses is clear from the order he passed in the following terms upon a petition put in by the first party: 'I think sufficient evidence has been recorded on the side of this party. Further examining not necessary. Rejected.' This is not a case in which the Magistrate has in the 'exercise of his discretion declined to grant an adjournment to enable a party to produce evidence after he has already had an opportunity of doing so. The Magistrate's refusal is in direct contravention of the provision of law contained in Clause (4), Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which says that the Magistrate 'shall ...
Radha Charan Ray Chowdhry Vs. Golak Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal834
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The question which we have to decide in this case is whether the sum of Rs. 38-4 mentioned in the lease executed between the parties, which, I understand, was executed so far back as the year 1860, is to be regarded as an abwab. According to the translation with which we have been furnished, the said sum of Rs. 38-4 represents 'the fixed collection charges blended with rent.' To my mind, each of these cases depends upon its own particular circumstances, and we must look at the contract to see whether the payment which the tenant agrees to make is, in reality, part of the rent as opposed to what is known as an abwab.2. Let us for a moment consider what is the true construction of the lease itself and whether, upon such construction, the whole sum of Rs. 205 was or was not agreed between the parties as the rent for the land taken by the lessee and the true consideration for the granting of the lease. The lease purports to be a tahut kistbundi in favour of one M...
Ram NaraIn Sahoo Vs. Bandi Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal737
Brett and Mitra, JJ.1. The facts of this case are a little complicated, but there is no doubt as to what they are, and the main question before us is whether upon the facts the appellant is entitled to possession of the land covered by the litigation by ejecting the respondent.2. On December 3rd, 1887, the respondent obtained a Mortgage for Rs. 3,450 of a 5 annas. and odd gundas share of a village called LalWar. On November 18th, 1890, the same mortgagor. hypothecated a 4 annas out of the aforesaid 5 annas and odd gundas share of the property to the appellant. On March 7th, 1894, the respondent obtained a decree for sale on his mortgage but he omitted to make the appellant, the puisne mortgagee, a party to his suit It does not, however, appear that the respondent had notice of such encumbrance in favour of the appellant. On December 17th, 1897, the appellant instituted a suit on the mortgage to him making the respondent, the first mortgagee, a party The suit was commenced after the res...
Nepal Chandra Ghose Vs. Mohendra Nath Roy Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal707
Francies W. Maclean, C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claimed the whole 16 annas of the rent. It turned out that, at the most, he was entitled only to a 4 annas share, and a decree has accordingly been given for such share. The defendants appeal.2. Their contention is that the plaintiff is not entitled to a decree even for, that share. It is argued that the plaintiff sued originally for the whole 16 annas share, but is found entitled only to a 4 anna share of the rent, that his co-sharer landlords are not co-plaintiffs nor defendants, that there is no allegation pr proof of any arrangement between the landlords and the tenants that the tenants could pay each co-sharer his proportionate share of the entire rent and that, in the absence of any such arrangement, the suit is not maintainable This contention is supported by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court, viz., Guni Mahomed v. Moran (1878) I.L.R. 4 Clac. 96 : 2 C.L.R. 371.3. A suit originally of one nature has been converted in...
Watkins Vs. Sarat Chunder Ghose Moulick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal572
Francis W. Maclean, C.J.1. The questions, which arise upon this appeal, are as to the principle upon which the accounts are to be taken in the suit, in regard to the commission to be allowed to the late Administrator General.2. Three questions arise:(1) whether he is entitled to charge more than one commission upon his commission;(2) whether he is entitled to charge commission upon the entire collections of a revenue-paying estate in his hands; and,(3) whether he is entitled to charge commission upon the estate of his testator in the hands of the Receiver of the joint estate, to a share of which his testator was entitled.3. As regards the first question, it is dear that the late Administrator General was only entitled to charge one commission-upon his commission. The appellants, however, say that, although upon the face of the accounts of the late Administrator General, it may look as if he had charged more than this, in effect and as regards the amount actually charged, he has not cha...
Jhalan Jha Vs. Buchar Gope
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal811
Ameer Ali and Handley, JJ.1. It appears that a charge under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was brought by one Ramadhin Singh against Buchar Gope. That case was tried by Moulvi Mohammed Abdul Kadir, the Deputy Magistrate of Bhagalpore. He discharged the accused Buchar Gope under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, declaring the case to be a false one, and directed prosecution of the complainant in that case under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The present petitioner Jhalan Jha was examined in that case as a defence witness, and the Deputy Magistrate says that it was argued in Buchar's defence that Ramadhin had been set up by Jhalan Jha's tehsilar Pradip Roy under Jhalan Jha's instructions. The Deputy Magistrate in his judgment commented severely upon the evidence for the prosecution and also on the alleged connection of Jhalan with Ramadhin. His impression at that time apparently was that Jhalan Jha was at the bottom of that prosecution. Application was made to h...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›