Kolkata Court September 1914 Judgments
MofizuddIn Ahmed Vs. Basanta Kumar Ghosh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal674,30Ind.Cas.464
1. In this case it appears that five persons were placed on their trial on a charge under Section 143 and were acquitted. The trial took place in the Court of Babu Makhan Lal Chatterjee, a Magistrate exercising first Class powers. The present petitioner was the complainant in the case to which we have referred and after the disposal of that case and the transfer to another District of the Deputy-Magistrate, an application was made by one of the accused persons for sanction under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the prosecution of the petitioner on a charge under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. That application was made to and was granted by the District Magistrate.2. It is conceded that for the purposes of Section 195 of the Code the Court of the Deputy Magistrate was subordinate, not to the District Magistrate, but to the Sessions Judge and the question we have to consider then is, whether in view of the provisions of Section 195, Sub-section (1), Clause (b), the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Sarojbashini Debi Vs. Sripati Charan Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal702
Jenkins, C.J.1. The proceedings which are culled in question by the Rule now under consideration arise out of action taken by the Magistrate under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 133 provides that whenever a Magistrate, of the qualifications there described, considers, on receiving a police report or other information and on taking such evidence, if any, as ho thinks fit, that any unlawful obstruction should be removed from any way used by the public, he may make a conditional order of the nature described in the section, and may call upon the person affected to appear before himself and move to have the order set aside or modified. Here it appeared to the Magistrate that there was a public nuisance coining within the terms of that section and the nature of the nuisance was an unlawful obstruction of a way used by the public. He accordingly made a conditional order. The person affected undoubtedly appeared and showed cause, but notwithstanding that the Magistrate h...
Tag this Judgment!Akbar Ali Mahomed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal706
Jenkins, C.J. and Teunon, J.1. In this case the accused petitioner had been required to furnish security for good behaviour under Section 118, read with, Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereupon he offered two sureties, and the matter was referred by the Magistrate to the police for enquiry. The police submitted a report to the effect that the sureties were not acceptable; and, proceeding upon that report, the Magistrate refused to accept the sureties. It has been repeatedly pointed out that sureties offered should not he refused except alter judicial enquiry by the Magistrate who has made the order under Section 118, such enquiry to be made under the provisions of Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Bale was, therefore, granted calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why the petitioner should not he given an opportunity of showing that the sureties offered were fit to be accepted. No cause has been shown and on the facts we have stated we make this...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Surath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR42Cal608
Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a Reference to the High Court by the Sessions Judge of Purnea, under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the suggestion is that the law as prescribed in Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been observed. That view has been supported before us by Mr. Chaudhuri who has cited in support of it a decision in Emperor v. Muhammad Hadi (1903) I. L. R. 26 All. 177. That case does not purport to go beyond the decision on which it is based, that is to say, the decision in Queen-Empress v. Ahmadi (1898) I. L. R. 20 All. 264. But in fact it does enlarge the rule laid down in that case, in so far as it applies the rule in the earlier case, which was limited to witnesses produced, to witnesses whom the accused might be prepared to produce, and this enlargement is in conflict with the express terms of Section 208. I cannot myself see that the Magistrate has in any way failed to observe the provisions of that Section. It is not suggested that ho did no...
Tag this Judgment!Hirn Alias Akbar Ali Mahomed Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.663
1. In this case the accused-petitioner had been required to furinish security for good behaviour under Section 110 read with Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thereupon lie offered two sureties, and the matter was referred by the Magistrate to the Police for inquiry. The Police submitted a report to the effect that the sureties were not acceptable and, proceeding upon that report, the Magistrate refused to accept the sureties. It has been repeatedly pointed out that sureties offered should not be refused except after judicial enquiry by the Magistrate who has made the order under Section 118, such inquiry to be made under the provisions of Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Rule was, therefore, granted calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to show cause why the petitioner should not be given an opportunity of showing that the sureties offered were fit to be accepted. No cause has been shown and on the facts we have stated, we make this Rule absolute and direct th...
Tag this Judgment!Sarojbasini Devi Vs. Sripati Charan Chowdhury and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.799a
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The proceedings which are called in question by the Rule now under consideration, arise out of action taken by the Magistrate under Chapter X of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 133 provides that whenever a Magistrate of the qualifications there described considers, on receiving a Police report or other information and on taking such evidence, if any, as he thinks fit, that any unlawful obstruction should be removed from anyway used by the public, he may make a conditional order of the nature described in the section and may call upon the person affected to appear before himself and move to have the order set aside or modified. Here it appeared to the Magistrate that there was a public nuisance coming within the terms of that section and the nature of the nuisance was an unlawful obstruction of a way used by the public. He accordingly made a conditional order. The person affected undoubtedly appeared and showed cause, but notwithstanding that the Magistr...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Surath and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-09-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.799
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a reference to the High Court by the Sessions Judge of Purnea under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the suggestion is that the law as prescribed in Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not been observed. That view has been supported before us by Mr. Chowdhuri, who has cited in support of it a decision in Emperor v. Muhammad Hadi 26 A. 177 : A.W.N. (1903) 215 : 1 Cr. L.J. 357. That case does not purport to go beyond the decision on which it is based, that is to say, the decision in Queen-Empress v. Ahmadi 20 A. 264 : A.W.N. (1898) 52. But in fact it does enlarge the rule laid down in that case in so far as it applies the rule in the earlier case, which was limited to witnesses produced, to witnesses whom the accused might be prepared to produce, and this enlargement is in conflict with the express terms of Section 208. I cannot myself see that the Magistrate has in any way failed to observe the provisions of that section. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Meredith Vs. Sanjibani Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1919Cal558,(1915)ILR42Cal313
Sharfuddin and Teunon, JJ.1. In this case the accused petitioner, one H. Meredith, a bailiff of the Presidency Small Cause Court, has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.2. It appears that, at about 4 P.M., on the 31st of January 1913, he was entrusted with a writ or warrant (Exh. M.) which required and authorized him to give possession to the decree-holder, Kali Charan Pal, of certain premises then in the occupation of the judgment-debtor, Purna Chandra Pal. As the warrant was to be executed that very day, he forthwith proceeded on his errand, reached the premises (No. 4, Jagannath Sur's Lane) at or about 4-30 to 4-45, and, as he reported on the 31st, succeeded, 'after considerable difficulty,' in giving vacant possession to the decree-holder at 5 minutes after 6.3. At 11-45 P.M., a complaint was lodged against him and his companion, one Bomsweteh, at the neighbouring thana. The complaint was made by the judgment-debtor Puma...
Tag this Judgment!H. Meredith Vs. Sanjibani Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-07-1914
Reported in: 28Ind.Cas.1000
1. In this case the accused, petitioner one H. Meredith, a bailiff of the Small Cause Court, has been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.2. It appears that at about 4 P.M. on the 31st of January 1913, he was entrusted with a writ or warrant (Exhibit M) which required and authorised him 'to give possession' to the decree-holder Kali Charan Pal, of certain premises then in the occupation of the judgment-debtor, Purna Chandra Pal. As the warrant was to be executed that very day, he forthwith proceeded on his errand, reached the premises (No. 4, Jagannath Suri's Lane) at or about 4-30 to 4-45, and, as he reported on the 31st, succeeded 'after considerable difficulty' in giving vacant possession to the decree-holder at five minutes after 6.3. At 11-45 P.M. a complaint was lodged against him and his companion, one Boms-witch at the neighbouring thana. The complaint was made by the judgment debtor, Purna Chandra Pal, or by the judgment-d...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Upendra Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Cal778,30Ind.Cas.113
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. Upendra Nath Das was tried at the last Criminal Sessions of tin's Court before Stephen, J., and a Special Jury on charges under Sections 302, 304 and 826 of the Indian Penal Code. The Jury found the accused guilty under Section 302 by a majority of 8 to 1. The learned Judge agreeing with them gave judgment in accordance with the opinion of the majority and sentenced the accused to death.2. The Advocate-General subsequently on the representation of the accused's Counsel as 'to the direction given by the learned Judge in his charge to the Jury purported to grant a certificate under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. Certain alleged errors of decision on points of law were attributed to the learned Judge, but when the case came on for argument it was found that in some respects the certificate was in direct conflict with what was stated by the Judge, and in other respects was manifestly unsustainable, or failed to formulate the accused's real grievance as placed bef...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »