Kolkata Court September 1908 Judgments
Narendra Lal Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal166
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. The petitioners in these cases are accused of offences under the new Explosives Act, 1908. The offences which they are alleged to have committed are non-bailable. They were arrested on warrants and after arrest were produced before the Magistrate, who committed them to jail pending trial. Applications for bail have been made to the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and refused. They now apply to this Court for bail.2. It has been strongly pressed upon us on their behalf that these persons are not likely to abscond, and certain English authorities have been cited which lay down the principles on which bail is granted in that country.3. We are not prepared, however, to agree that the decisions of English Courts are necessarily a safe guide to us in interpreting sections of our own Code; and we observe that the cases cited refer to offences of much less gravity than those of which the present petitioners are accused. We doubt very much if English Judges would le...
Tag this Judgment!Rajah Narendra Lal Khan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.738
1. The petitioners in these cases are accused of offences under the new Explosives Act, 1908. The offences which they are alleged to have committed are non-bailable. They were arrested on warrants and after arrest were produced before the Magistrate, who committed them to jail pending trial. Applications for bail have been made to the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge and refused. They now apply to this Court for bail.2. It has been strongly pressed upon us on their behalf that these persons are not likely to abscond, and certain English authorities have been cited which lay down the principles on which bail is granted in that country.3. We are not prepared, however, to agree that the decisions of English Courts are necessarily a safe guide to us in interpreting sections of our own Code; and we observe that the cases cited refer to offences of much less gravity than those of which the present petitioners are accused. We doubt very much if English Judges would lend a ready ear to applic...
Tag this Judgment!A. Thomson Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-15-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.590
1. This is a Rule on the District Magistrate of the Manbhoom to show cause why the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Gobindpur, dated the 22nd July 1908, directing one Mr. Thomson not to sink a certain pit should not be set. aside. 2. It appears that on the 2nd July 1908, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate issued an order to Mr. Thomson and another directing them not to proceed further with the sinking of the pit and the order ends up with the words 'cause to be shown on the 16th July 1908 against this order.' Cause was subsequently shown, and finally the order complained of was passed on the 22nd July.3. It appears to us, however, perfectly clear that the order of 2nd July was an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, and the Sub-Divisional, Magistrate had no (sic) to extend the period of two months prescribed by that section by repeating the order on the 22nd July 1908. The operation of the order, therefore, expired on the 2nd September, 1908, and to-day being the 15th ...
Tag this Judgment!Jyotindra Nath Daw Vs. Hem Chandra Daw
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-10-1908
Reported in: (1909)ILR36Cal415,2Ind.Cas.293
Sharfuddin and Coxe, JJ.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Burdwan to show cause why the order of the Deputy Magistrate, dated the 12th August 1908, reviving the case of the petitioner, should not be set aside.2. It appears that the complainant in this case lodged his complaint on the 29th May 1908. He was referred to the Assistant Surgeon for examination of his injuries, and was directed by the Court to prove his case on the 19th June 1908, on which date his witnesses were not present. Then the case was fixed for the 9th July. On the 9th July, the case was dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Deputy Magistrate on the ground of the absence of the complainant's witnesses. We then find the complainant moving the District Magistrate on the 23rd July 1908, under Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on which the District Magistrate passed the following order: 'The non-appearance of the witnesses is due to the fault of the complainan...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›