Kolkata Court August 1913 Judgments
In Re: an Attorney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal446
Jenkins, C.J.1. We will hear the application on the merits.2. Mr. B.C. Mitter. This application for sanction to prosecute is made under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: we have nothing to do with Section 476. All that the applicant for sanction need establish is 'that there is a prima facie case against the person to prosecute whom sanction is prayed for--the question is not whether guilt is proved, but whether there arc prima facie grounds for removing a bar to the institution of criminal proceedings in which the question of guilt can be determined:' In re Raoji Sakharam (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 732. On the materials before the Court, it cannot be contended that a prima facie case against the attorney under Sections 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code has not been made out.3. Mr. Eardley Norton. The principles which should guide the Court in determining whether sanction to prosecute should be granted are: (i) whether the application is in the interests of justice, and (ii) wh...
Tag this Judgment!israil Vs. Shamser Rahman
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1913
Reported in: (1914)ILR41Cal436
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. The petitioner are plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from building on the land. The plaintiffs and the defendants are joint owners in respect of this property, but the defendants alone have been in actual occupation of the land with the consent of their co-owners. On the 11th May 1913, the defendants began to dig for the foundation of a substantial building which they intended to erect on the land. On the 24th May, the plaintiffs commenced this action and applied for a temporary injunction. Notice of this application was served on the defendants on the 7th June, and on the 26th June, the Court granted an injunction by which the defendants were restrained from proceeding with the erection of the building during the pendency of the suit. The Court found that the plaintiffs had come before the Court in proper time, and that it was impossible to deny that the greater portion ...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarka Singh and Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1913
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.732
1. Those are two appeals by two appellants from the same judgment of the learned Sessions Judge who tried their cases together. There were three charges under Section 408 and Section 408 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against both the appellants. The first charge related to a sum of Rs. 2,500 said to have been defalcated on 26th March 1912; the second charge related to a sum of Rs. 2,150 said to have been defalcated on 29th March 1912, and the third and last charge was with reference to a sum of Rs. 8,620 said to have been defalcated on 8th October 1912.2. The first ground taken on behalf of the appellants is that there has been a misjoinder of charges; and the second is that the two appellants should not have been tried jointly. Under Section 239, Code of Criminal Procedure, judicial discretion has been given to the Court to try the principal offender and the abetter either jointly or separately; and the manner in which this discretion should be exercised must depend o...
Tag this Judgment!Harendra Narayan Das Vs. Ramjan Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal187,(1914)ILR41Cal433
Coxe, J.1. This was a Rule on the District Magistrate of Goalpara to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Section 379, read with Section 109, of the Indian Penal Code, should not be set aside on the ground that there was no dishonest intention in the act complained of. The petitioner has been convicted of abetment of theft and the property said to have been stolen was wood taken from the forest.2. It appears from the judgment of the Magistrate that it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that he had a right to take wood without a pass. The Magistrate, however, refused to decide whether the petitioner had such a right or not. He says: 'I think it is beyond the province of this Court to adjudicate whether such right exists or not;' and in the conclusion of his judgment he also refused to go into the question 'whether the tenants have any such right as has been set up in this case.' But he found that inasmuch as the accused had himself taken passes for the...
Tag this Judgment!Bhramar Lal Banduri and ors. Vs. Najstda Lal Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.199
Coxe, J. 1. This was a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant from digging up the land in his possession for the purpose of making bricks. The Munsif dismissed, the suit holding that as the plaintiff was out of possession the suit was not maintainable. The Subordinate Judge in appeal hold that this view was erroneous and accordingly decreed the plaintiffs suit. The defendant appeals.2. The question whether a suit of this nature is maintainable by a plaintiff who is out of possession is discussed in the case of Davenport v. Davenport (1849) 7 Hare Rep. 217 : 68 Eng. Rep. 89 : 18 L.J.Ch. 163 : 13 Jur. 227 : 82 R.R. 76. That case may be regarded as authority that the Courts will not interfere by way of injunction when the plaintiff is out of possession unless there is some privity between the parties. As pointed out in Lowndes v. Bettle (1864) 33 L.J. Ch. 451 : 10 Jur. (n. s.) 226 : 12 W.R. 399 : 10 L.T. (n. s.) 55 : 3 N.R. 409 : 143 R.R. 388., the tendency of decisions has been...
Tag this Judgment!Manmohun Ghose Vs. Equitable Coal Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1913
Reported in: 24Ind.Cas.144
1. The plaintiff in this suit is an assignee of a lease which was granted by the 1st defendant to the second defendant. The plaintiff brought this suit to have it declared that the lease was a permanent, heritable and transferable one, that the rent was fixed in perpetuity and also that defendant No. 1 was bound to recognise the plaintiff as tenant of the lease-hold in dispute and for other reliefs.2. It is now admitted that the lease created a permanent, heritable and transferable tenancy and that the transfer to the plaintiff is a valid transfer. But it is contended that the circumstances of the case are not such as would justify granting a declaratory decree. The learned Standing Counsel who appears for the first defendant-respondent has cited several rulings in support, of this contention. But all these rulings were before the passing of the Specific Relief Act. Illustrations to Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act show that it has introduced a considerable change in the law on th...
Tag this Judgment!Nikunja Behari Sen Vs. Harendra Chandra Sinha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal255(1),(1914)ILR41Cal514
Imam and Chapman, JJ.1. This case comes before us on a reference from the Sessions Judge of Sylhet. One Nikunja Behari Sen was a prosecution witness in a case under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code. The pleader for the defence asked the witness in cross examination: 'Do you drink or smoke ganja? The witness replied in the negative. Subsequently the witness laid a complaint against the pleader before a Magistrate alleging that the question was asked only to satisfy the grudge of the pleader's client. Summons was issued under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The learned Sessions Judge has referred the matter to this Court and has recommended that the proceeding against the pleader be quashed. The petition of complaint did not allege any improper motive on the part of the pleader himself. There was merely a suggestion that the pleader had no means of knowing whether the instruction he had received from his client in the matter was true or false.3. In our opinion the Magistrate ...
Tag this Judgment!Deputy Legal Remembrancer Vs. Gaya Prosad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Cal560,(1914)ILR41Cal425
Mookerjee and Beachcroft, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bihar and Orissa under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused was tried by a Magistrate for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, and was acquitted by him under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the 17th November last. On the 2nd May 1918, this appeal was presented by Mr. J. Orr, the Deputy Legal Remembrancer of Bengal. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of the appeal so presented.2. Section 417 provides that the Local Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an Original or Appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court. The term 'Public Prosecutor' is defined in Clause (t) of Section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which lays down that 'Public Prosecutor' means any person appointed under Section 492 and includes any person acting under the direction of a public prosecutor an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›