Kolkata Court June 1912 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.
Jhakri Chamar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.1001
1. This is an appeal on behalf of three persons, Jhakri Chamar, Jhonti Chamar and Lungi Chamar, who have been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpur under Sections 304 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years under each section, the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal was heard in the first instance by Mr. Justice Carnduff and Mr. Justice Imam. There was no appearance on behalf of the accused or of the Crown before the learned Judges; upon an examination of the record, Mr. Justice Carnduff came to the conclusion that the convictions and sentences ought to be affirmed; Mr. Justice Imam took the contrary view and held that the appellants ought to be acquitted. The appeal has been placed before me under Section 429 of the Criminal Procedure Code. I have had the advantage of fall and able arguments, both from Mr. Roy who appeared as amicus curi on behalf of the accused and from the learned Advocate-General who appeared in...
Ram Pratap Nemani and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.171
1. The question upon which this Rule was issued is whether a certain form of gambling, which has become well known in Calcutta as Cotton Gambling, comes within the provisions of Section 44 of Act IV of 1866, as amended by Act III of 1897 (B.C).2. We may safely say at the outset that this is a pure question of law, and has nothing to do with the nature and effect of the particular form of gambling now under consideration, which may be, and, in our opinion, is., a most pernicious form of gambling, and yet may not be rendered penal by the Act under which these convictions have been held.3. The offence which is created by Section 44 of the Calcutta Police Act is that of owning or keeping, or being employed in, a common gaming house, or advancing or furnishing money for the purpose of gaming with persons frequenting that house.4. The question then that arises in this case is, whether the premises in which the defendants carried on this cotton gambling is a common gaming house' within the de...
Radha Madhab Paikara Vs. Kalpataru Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.811
1. This is an appeal on behalf of the third defendant in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for confirmation of possession thereof. The plaintiff-respondent, admittedly the original owner of the property, on the 13th March 1888, mortgaged jt to one Hari Bnllav Bose. The mortgagee enforced his security, obtained a decree and in execution thereof purchased the property on the 4th May 1897. On that date, therefore, the plaintiff ceased to be the owner of the property, but he apparently continued in possession. On the 22nd April 1898, the mortgagee auction-purchaser executed a conveyance in respect of the property in favour of the first defendant. The case for the plaintiff is that this transfer was made for his benefit but that the conveyance was taken in the name of the first defendant because he himself was in debt and was anxious to keep his property from the reach of his creditors. On the 25th March 1899, Jhe first defendant executed a mortgage of plaintiff pro...
Mahomed Sadut Ali Mallik Vs. Hara Sundari Debya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.351
1. The respondent in this second appeal sued as being the reversionary heir of her father after the death in 1898 of her widowed mother, Jagodeshwari Debya, for a declaration of her title to, and the recovery of possession of, a share in shikmi taluq. It appears that in 1873 a decree for rent of the taluq was obtained against Jagodeshwari and her co-sharers. The latter satisfied the claim, brought a suit for contribution against Jagodeshwari and were given a decree, in execution of which a share of the taluq was sold and purchased on the 20th May 1876 by the appellant, a Mahomedan. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit, and this appeal is preferred by the defendant.2. The first of the only two points raised on the appellant's behalf is as to the refusal of the Court of first instance to grant the appellant an adjournment and direct the issue of a commission for the examination of two ladies to prove that the respondent's father had adopted a son and that sh...
Kesri Chand Vs. National Jute Mills Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal119
Fletcher, J.1. There is nothing to say in this suit. The plaintiff does not appear, and Mr. Jackson and Mr. Norton on behalf of the defendants say that they wish to open their case. That is a procedure which is not contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The decision of Sir George Jessel in Ex parte Jacobson (1882) L. R. 22 Ch. D. 312, 314 does not apply to this case at all. That case was that when the Master had heard the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff, he said he was prepared to decide on the defendant's side without calling for any evidence to be given for or on behalf of the defendants. That of course is a position which the defendant is not bound to take up. Under our Code, notwithstanding that at the close of the plaintiff's case the Judge has formed an opinion in favour of the defendant, the defendant can say that he is entitled to give evidence in proof of the case he has made in his own written statement; so that in the case of an appeal there may be no reman...
NazimuddIn Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR40Cal163
Holmwood and Imam, JJ.1. This is an appeal from the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Backerganj upon one Nazimuddin. The Judge, disagreeing with both the assessors as to the innocence of the accused, though he says he agrees with their findings of fact, has sentenced the appellant Nazimuddin to 2 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The trial appears to us to be altogether vitiated by the fact that the assessors were not asked and apparently not allowed to give an independent opinion on the case.3. We have pointed out to this learned Judge before, and we must do so again, that his method of cross-examining the assessors is entirely contrary to law, and results in grave miscarriage of justice. The law (Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) gives the Judge a discretion to sum up the evidence for the benefit of the assessors if he thinks necessary but it gives him no power to question them until they h...
Kesri Chand Kothori Vs. National Jute Mills, Co. Ltd. and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.87
Fletcher, J.1. There is nothing to say in this suit. The plaintiff does not appear and Mr. Jackson and Mr. Norton, on behalf of the defendant, say that they wish to open their case. That is a procedure which is not contemplated by the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision of Sir George Jessel in Ex parte Jacobson, In re Pincoffs (1882) 22 Ck. D. 312; 52 L.J. Ch. 501; 48 L.T. 197; 31 W.R. 554 does not apply to this case at all. That case was that when the Master had heard the evidence given on behalf of the plaintiff, he said he was prepared to decide on the defendant's side without calling for any evidence to be given for or on behalf of the defendant. That, of course, is a position which the defendant is not bound to take up. Under our Code, notwithstanding that at the close of the plaintiff's case, the Judge has formed an opinion in favour of the defendant, the defendant can say that he is entitled to give evidence in proof of the case he has made in his own written statement; so tha...
Nazimuddi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1912
Reported in: 15Ind.Cas.641
1. This is an appeal from the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Backerganj upon one Nazimuddi. The Judge, disagreeing with both the assessors as to the innocence of the accused, though he says he agrees with their findings of fact, has sentenced the appellant Nazimuddi to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, Indian Penal Code.2. The trial appears to us to be altogether vitiated by the fact that the assessors were not asked and apparently not allowed to give an independent opinion on the case.3. We have pointed out to this learned Judge before and we must do so again that his method of cross-examining the assessors is entirely contrary to law and results in grave miscarriage of justice. The law, Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, gives the Judge a discretion to sum up the evidence for the benefit of the assessors if he thinks necessary but it gives him no power to question them until they have delivered their opinions o...
Lachman Ojha Vs. Anup Rai
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1912
Reported in: 18Ind.Cas.176
1. We are invited in this Rule to set aside an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the petitioners, as plaintiffs, sued on a registered bond and produced it in support of their claim. Upon an examination of the bond, it appeared that the figures 35 had been altered to 25, in the clause which fixed the value of the paddy deliverable in lieu of interest. The Court dismissed the suit on the 16th August 1911, holding that the plaintiffs were guilty of the alteration, and took proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code; but as an appeal against the decree in the bond suit was preferred, the proceedings were held in abeyance. The judgment of the Court was ultimately confirmed on appeal on the 15th March 1912. Thereupon notice was issued by the first Court upon the present petitioners to show cause why an order should not be made under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Cause was shown and an order was made on the 6th May 1912 in ...
Batuk Nath Mandal Vs. BepIn Bihari Chaudhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.90
Stephen, J.1. The plaintiffs and others including the defendant No. 1 were co-sharers in a certain putni tenure, the share of the plaintiff being three-sevenths of the whole and that of the defendant No. 1 two-sevenths. It appears, however, that the name of the defendant No. 1 was alone recorded in the landlord's books as the holder of the tenure. The tenure, therefore, so far as the landlord was concerned, was represented by that defendant. In that state of things in the year 1307, the latter sold his share of the tenure to a stranger who is not a party to the suit, and the case has been argued on the footing that the share passed to the vendee with effect from the beginning of the year 1308. Subsequently, the landlord brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent of the tenure in respect of the years 1307 and 1308, and no steps having been taken for the rectification of the landlord's books in which the name of the defendant No. 1 still stood as the holder of the tenure, the suit wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »