Kolkata Court June 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.
Jalim Singh Kotary Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal951
Stephen, J.1. This is a case in which the plaintiff sues the Secretary of State, as the authority responsible for the Eastern Bengal State Railway, for the value of four bales of piece-goods, which he delivered to the Railway and which, he says, were lost, while they were in the custody of the Railway.2. I will first consider the facts of the case, which are not in themselves complicated, but as to which there is a substantial dispute. We have had the procedure for taking goods by Railway detailed to us very fully by one of the witnesses for the defence, and his statement of the procedure may be taken as substantially accurate. I need not go through it in detail, but the general lines on which the operation of sending off goods by train is performed is that the consignor takes his goods to the station, and there has filled in a document called the forwarding note, which, after he has seen various officials, is registered by the registering clerk; then the consignor on production of the...
Abdul Aziz Molla Vs. Ebrahim Molla
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal965
Geidt and Mokerjee, JJ.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants in a suit to have the plaintiff's right by inheritance declared in respect of a share of certain land. The Subordinate Judge on appeal has decreed the suit with respect to the southern portion of the land in dispute.2. Two objections are taken in this appeal.3. The first objection is founded on the fact that the plaintiffs had brought previous suit with respect to the same plot of land against these defendants. That suit was withdrawn, and permission was given to the plaintiffs to bring a fresh suit on payment of the defendant's costs. At the time when the present suit was instituted these costs had not been paid; but it appears that they were paid to the defendant's pleader before the suit came on for trial.4. The objection, therefore, taken by the learned pleader for the appellant is that as the plaintiffs had not complied with the order passed in the former suit that they were to pay the defendant's costs, the sui...
Emaman Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal983
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. The twelve petitioners were convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of an offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced each to 21 day's rigorous imprisonment. A Rule was issued to show cause why the conviction should not be set aside and a new trial ordered chiefly on the ground that the record of the case, the trial of which was somewhat protracted, is insufficient to enable this Court to deal with the case adequately upon revision.2. We have heard Mr. Jackson for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Crown and have considered the authorities cited which lay down the rule that the Magistrate should state the reasons for conviction in such a manner that this Court on revision may judge whether there were sufficient materials before him to support the conviction, Section 362 of the Code prescribes that the evidence in appealable cases, that is, in which a Presidency Magistrate imposes a fine exceeding Rs. 200 or im...
Shyamanand Das Paharaj Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal990
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. We think this Rule must be made absolute.2. In the first place, although the Magistrate acting under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is empowered to make an order prohibiting a person from holding a hat on certain specified days of the week, the terms of the law do not empower a Magistrate to make a direction that the hat shall be held upon certain days, leaving the party no option to hold his hat upon some other days than those on which his rival holds his hat. The Magistrate explains that the days of the week were fixed to suit the convenience of the petitioner, and in accordance with the previous arrangement, in which he had acquiesced. Whether that is so or not we think the Magistrate's order is technically wrong, not being covered by Section 144 of the Code. Apart from this there seems to be no evidence on the record that disobedience of the Magistrate's order is likely to, lead to a breach of the peace. That some evidence on the point should...
Matuk Dhari Tewari Vs. Hari Madhab Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal979
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. This is a somewhat peculiar case, and the proceedings are marked by several irregularities.2. On the 11th January last the Sub-divisional Officer of Sitamarhi passed the following order: 'Local inquiry held, the tatte buildings put up on the road southwards from the post-office and at the south-west corner of the same must be removed. They are obviously put up to Hook the road, which is a public way and used by carts. The former building to he removed entirely and the other so far as to leave a track not less than 15 feet wide. Issue notice accordingly under Section 138 of the Criminal Procedure Code.' The petitioner, who is karpardaz of Rani Raj Bansi Koer, received notice and showed cause, urging that the alleged way is the private property of his employer, and asking for a jury to be appointed.3. The Magistrate instead of first satisfying himself as to the bona fides of the claim, as required by law, see Preonath Dey v. Gobordhone Malo (1897) I.L.R. 25 Calc....
Emperor Vs. Prasanna Kumar Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1904
Reported in: (1904)ILR31Cal1007
Pratt and Handley, JJ.1. Prasanna Kumar Das has been convicted of an offence under Section 243 of the Indian Penal Code. The history of the case, as appears from the evidence which we accept, is as follows: Prasanna, who was a contributor to a local newspaper at Barisal, told the Editor that he knew of people, who made counterfeit coins and asked him to place him in communication with the special Police Inspector, that he might help him to an arrest and so secure a reward. This was done, and Prasanna told the Inspector he knew of one Wahed Ali of Jhalakhati, who made false coins. The Inspector told him he would be rewarded if he could get the man caught in possession of counterfeit coin. Suddenly Prasanna went off by steamer and rail to Calcutta with 40 or 50 counterfeit rupees. These he admittedly obtained from one Chand Sarip, and for the reasons stated by the Judge we are satisfied that he got them before the interview with the Inspector. Prasanna's trunk was broken open by some thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›