Kolkata Court May 1916 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.
Lakhimi Ram Gaooi Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.986
ORDER1. In the case mentioned, So-miruddin Sonar v. Emperor, the accused had been convicted of an offence under one section only of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years; it was ruled by Sharfuddin and Chapman, JJ, that as the trial had been held by an Assistant Sessions Judge, the appeal lay,, under Section 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the Court of Session and not to the High Court. In the case before us, the accused has been convicted and sentenced under two sections of the Indian Penal Code; the sentences, however, are directed to run concurrently. The appeal, we think, lies to the Court of Session; this view is in accord with that adopted by Chandavarkar and Heaton, JJ., in Tulsidas Lakshman v. Emperor 3 Ind. Cas. 171 : 11 Bom. L.R. 544 : 10 Cr.L.J. 250, namely, that where an Assistant Sessions Judge passes sentences upon an accused, each of which is four years or under, and they are ordered to run concurrently, the appeal from the co...
Gangadhar Karmakar and ors. Vs. Shekharbasini Dasya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.348
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. The whole of this matter arises out of the fact that on the 21st of February 1916, when an application for a review of a certain judgment was made, the fee of Rs. 1-2-0 was paid instead of a fee of Re. 2-4-0. The first point with reference to that, which was made by the learned Vakil for the respondent, was that the Article in the Statute of Limitation says that the time is ninety days from the date of the decree, which must be taken, by reason of another provision, to be the same date as the pronouncement of the judgment. That would be so, but for the fact that Section 12 of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation prescribed for an appeal, an application for leave to appeal as a pauper, and an application for a review of judgment (as in the case here) the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed against or sought to be reviewed s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›