Kolkata Court October 1912 Judgments
Kari Singh Vs. J. Finch
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-11-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.349
1. In this case, the accused, Kari Singh, who is the petitioner before us, was put on his trial before Maulvi Najum-ud-din, an Honorary Magistrate, on a charge under Section 147, Indian Penal Code. In the course of that trial, he presented a petition to the District Magistrate of Monghyr for a transfer of the case to another Court on the ground that he would not get a fair and impartial trial before the Honorary Magistrate. Paragraph 5 of that petition was as follows: That on the 17th Jane last, on the date fixed for hearing of this case, Mr. Macpherson and the Manager of Manjhoul Kothi, where some properties of the trying Honorary Magistrate have been leased out, came to the Court of the trying Magistrate and had some private talk with the Honorary Magistrate and the petitioner apprehends that the Manager of the Manjhoul Kothi was brought to put additional pressure on the trying Magistrate to induce him to convict the petitioner and that he cannot get a fair and impartial trial in tha...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Das Tanti Vs. Upendra NaraIn Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.937
1. In this suit for ejectment, the defendant set up two defences; first, that the notice served upon him to quit was not sufficient and, secondly, that he has a permanent maurasi right to the tanks which were the subject-matter of this litigation.2. The Munsif dismissed the suit upholding both the contentions of the defendant; but the Subordinate Judge on appeal has reversed the Munsif's decision, and the defendant therefore, appeals to this Court.3. The sufficiency of the notice given to the defendant was challenged on the ground that six months according to the British Calendar did not intervene between the date of the notice and the end of the year when he was required to give up possession and the question that arises is whether the six months should be calculated according to the Bengalee or according to the British Calendar. The tenancy commenced before the Transfer of Property Act came into operation and Section 106 of that Act does not apply and we, therefore, have to decide th...
Tag this Judgment!Samaruddi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal367
Chitty and Richardson, JJ.1. In this case the appellant Samaruddi has been convicted by the unanimous verdict of a jury of offences under Sections 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca to two years' rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal is, therefore, open to him only on the questions of law relating to the charge of the Additional Sessions Judge.2. The first point that has been urged before us is that the Judge was in error in putting before the jury what he calls 'a third alternative.' It should be stated that, before the trial began in the Sessions Court, the charge was amended, and, as eventually framed, the common object alleged was 'in order to take forcible possession of complainant Pandab's land and hut and to assault Pandab, Joydeb, Chandra Kishore and Karam Ali.' The Judge suggested to the jury that the case might not be precisely as t...
Tag this Judgment!SamaruddIn and Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-04-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.565
1. In this case, the appellant Samar-ud-din has been convicted by the unanimous verdict of a Jury of offences under Section 304/149, Indian Penal Code, and Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca to two years' rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal is, therefore, open to him only on the questions of law relating to the charge of the Additional Sessions Judge.2. The first point that has been urged before us is that the Judge was in error in putting before the Jury what he calls 'a third alternative.' It should be stated that before the trial began in the Sessions Court, the charge was amended and, as eventually framed, the common object alleged was 'in order to take forcible possession of complainant Pandab's land and hut and to assault Pandab, Joydeb, Chandra Kissore and Karam Ali.' The Judge suggested to the Jury that the case might not be precisely as the prosecution alleged and at th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›