Kolkata Court November 1908 Judgments
Brojobashi Panda Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.485
1. On the 8th June, 1907, the present applicant laid an information before the Sub-Inspector of Police at Sambalpore to the effect that there had been a burglary in his house and that a sum of Rs. 200 together with a mortgage-bond securing Rs. 2,350 had been stolen. He said that he suspected that the thefts had been instigated by one Kripa Sindhu and his brother-in-law Balk who, he said, would benefit by the disappearance of the bond. The Police held an investigation in the case and reported that the information was false. On this report the Deputy Commissioner directed a judicial enquiry into the matter by a Deputy Magistrate who, however, was transferred before the enquiry was completed. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner transferred the case to the file of another Magistrate, Mr. Pujahri, who, after giving the petitioner every opportunity of proving his story, came to the conclusion that the report of burglary was entirely false. On the 4th February, 1908, he submitted his report con...
Tag this Judgment!Fanindra Nath Banerjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal281
Maclean C.J. and Carnduff, J.1. These cases were tried before a Judge and Jury. The Judge agreeing with a majority of the Jury, four to one, convicted the prisoners of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to transportation for life. The appeals, therefore, cannot succeed, unless the appellants can satisfy us that there was some misdirection by the learned Judge in his charge to the Jury. The first criticism upon the action of the Judge is that, whilst the verdict was delivered on the 29th May 1908, and the sentence was passed on the 5th June following, his charge to the Jury was not written out until the 29th June. Reference has been made to Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section does not assist the appellants, for there is a proviso that 'in trials by Jury, the Court need not write a judgment, but the Court of Session should record the heads of the charge to the Jury.' There is nothing there as to when it ...
Tag this Judgment!Guru Das Hazra and ors. Vs. G.L. Weatheral and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.537
1. This is a Rule calling on the Magistrate of the District and the opposite party to show cause why the order complained of in this petition should not be set aside as having been made without jurisdiction.2. It appears that on the report of a certain police-officer the Magistrate drew up proceedings on the 22nd November, 1906, under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, against the parties concerned. He further issued an order for attachment, as he considered it necessary to attach the property in dispute pending the disposal of the case. We find that on the 22nd November, 1907, the Magistrate recorded the following order in the order sheet.--'The settlement proceedings will shortly begin and a big case like this can best be decided then. The case is adjourned sine die.'3. On the 23rd December about a month after the above order there was a petition put in by the second party to those proceedings, in consequence of which the Magistrate personally went to the place and made a local in...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Mahomed Khan Vs. Tarak Chandra Banerji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.336
1. This is a case under Section 145, Cr. P.C., in which the Magistrate has placed the first party in possession. The Petitioner obtained a rule from this Court on the Magistrate to show cause why this order should not be set aside, firstly, on the ground that the case had not been transferred to the file of the Magistrate who actually disposed of it; and, secondly, because in dealing with the case the Magistrate did not confine his attention to the question of possession.2. It appears that the case was at one time in the file of the Deputy Magistrate, Babu Lalit Chandra Guha, and was ultimately disposed of by Moulvi Ahmedulla. Babu Lalit Chandra Guha was transferred in the course of the case and the case was taken up by Moulvi, Ahmedulla and it is contended that that officer had no jurisdiction to dispose of it.3. Section 350, Cr. P.C., lays down that whenever any Magistrate ceases to exercise jurisdiction in a part-heard case and is succeeded by another Magistrate, who has and who exe...
Tag this Judgment!Fanindra Nath Banerji and ors. Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-28-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.970a
1. These cases were tried before a Judge and Jury. The Judge agreeing with a majority of the Jury, four to one, convicted the prisoners of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to transportation for life. The appeals, therefore, cannot succeed, unless the appellants can satisfy us that there was some misdirection by the learned Judge in his charge to the Jury. The first criticism upon the action of the Judge is that, whilst the verdict was delivered on the 29th May 1908, and the sentence was passed on the 5th June following, his charge to the Jury was not written out until the 29th June. Reference has also been made to Section 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section does not assist the appellants, for there is a proviso that in trials by Jury, the Court need not write a judgment, but the Court of Session should record the heads of the charge to the Jury.' There is nothing there as to when it must be written, as in th...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Pada Sadhu Vs. Mati Lal Fouzdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.166
1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be shortly stated as follows:2. Two brothers, Sat Couri Sen and Rai Charan Sen, owned a certain property. Sat Couri died, leaving, him surviving, a widow and three daughters; Rai Charan, also, died leaving behind him a son Taran. One Sridhar, who, the plaintiff says, was his benamadar, purchased a half share of the property from the three daughters; and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 purchased the entire property from the son. In suit No. 1047 of 1902, by Sridhar against the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, a compromise was effected and Sridhar gave up the half share for a consideration of Rs. 230. The plaintiff then brought his action against the defendants and Sridhar who, subsequently, died leaving a widow.3. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit against all the defendants, except Sridhar, and gave the plaintiff an ex parte decree against Sridhar's widow for the recovery of Rs. 230. The finding of the first Court was that Sridhar w...
Tag this Judgment!Ali Mahomed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-24-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.335
1. This is a rule issued on the District Magistrate of Tipperah to show cause why the conviction of the Petitioner should not be set aside on the ground that he could not be tried for two offences for having been found in possession of stolen property belonging to two different persons at different times.2. We feel ourselves bound by the rulings of this Court in the case of Nanda Kumar Sirkur v. The Emperor 11 C.W.N. 1128, which was passed after the Privy Council ruling in Subramania Iyer v. The King-Emperor 5 C.W.N. 866; 25 M. 61. The ruling which the learned Sessions Judge quotes per contra from Mann Miya v. The Empress 9 C. 371, has to all intents and purposes been set aside by the judgment of the Privy Council. That being so, the rule will have to be made absolute and as the trial was illegal and without jurisdiction a fresh trial upon each set of charges will have to be held. Should the Petitioner be convicted in either or both of the trials, the sentence of 9 months' rigorous imp...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: H.R. Cobbold
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal512,2Ind.Cas.572a
Frances W. Maclean, C.J.1. This really is not an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Fletcher, for he passed no order in the matter. It is an application under Section 73 of the Insolvent Act and we have ample jurisdiction to make the order which we propose to do. The Official Assignee has not appeared before us but the insolvent has and he does not object to the order.2. It is quite clear from the correspondence and the evidence in the case that the present appellants considered that they ought to have been entered in the schedule of the creditors in respect of the amount they claimed and those who represented the Official Assignee took the same view, and in fact a petition was presented for amending the schedule in that respect. It appears, however, that the application for the final discharge of the insolvent came on, on the 3rd of March in this year and apparently the matter escaped the attention of the parties and of the Court and nothing was done in the matter. The creditors, t...
Tag this Judgment!Gouridas Namasudra Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal659
Franics W. Maclean C.J. and Carnduff, J.1. The appellants before us are three namasudras, Gouridas, Girish and Gurudas, the brother of Girish. They, have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Tipperah, who, differing from both the Assessors, has found Gouridas and Gurudas guilty of the murder of one Saheb Ali, and Girish guilty of having caused simple hurt to the deceased. Girish has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, while the sentence on each of his companions is transportation for life under Section 302.2. Two points of law have been raised, and these we will dispose of at once.3. Saheb Ali was attacked and injured at Srirampore on the 28th May last. On the 29th he went to Brahmanberia and lodged a petition of complaint before the Magistrate, who examined him on oath, recorded his statement in compliance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and sent him to hospital, where he died on the 31...
Tag this Judgment!Gouridas Namasudra and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-21-1908
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.841
1. The appellants before us are three namasudras, Gouridas, Girish and Gurudas, the brother of Girish. They have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Tipperah, who, differing from both the Assessors, has found Gouridas and Gurudas guilty of the murder of one Saheb Ali, and Girish guilty of having caused simple hurt to the deceased. Girish has been sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, while the sentence on each of his companions is transportation for life under Section 302.2. Two points of law have been raised, and these we will dispose of at once3. Saheb Ali was attacked and injured at Srirampore on the 28th May last. On the 29th he went to Brahmanberia and lodged a petition of complaint before the Magistrate, who examined him on oath, recorded his statement in compliance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and sent him to hospital, where he died on the 31st. The statement recorded by the Magistra...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »