Kolkata Court October 1918 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.
Nagendro Nath Biswas Vs. Rakhal Das Sinha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-24-1918
Reported in: 49Ind.Cas.97
1. This is a Rule calling on the District Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why on grounds Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 set out in the petition the order revoking the sanction should not be set aside. The facts are short. Under the powers conferred by Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, an order was made restraining the opposite party from holding a-hat on his land at or near Peruli on Mondays and Fridays. He disobeyed that order apparently; or, at any rate, there was ground for prima facie believing that he had. An application was made to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for sanction to prosecute the opposite party for an offence committed under Section 188, Indian Penal Code. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate granted the sanction. After the sanction had been granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, an application was made to the Sessions Judge to set aside the sanction on the ground that the order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, was ultra vires and inoperative. The learne...
Srilal Chamaria and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-22-1918
Reported in: 48Ind.Cas.817
Richardson, J.1. The two appellants before us, Srilal Chamaria and Mimraj Benia, have been convicted by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on charges framed under Sections 161 and 109 of the Penal Code. The appellant Srilal has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer a further period of two months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant Mimraj has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appeals are preferred from these convictions and sentences.2. At the trial charges were also framed against the appellants on the footing that they respectively attempted and abetted an attempt to commit an offence punishable under Section 161 read with Section 109 and were, therefore, punishable under Section 511 of the Code or in the case of Mimarj under that section read with Section 109. These charges, however, were not pressed by the prosecution and...
Radha Kissen Goenka Vs. Fateh Chand Borah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1918
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.323
1. We make the Rule absolute in these terms: In our opinion, the learned Magistrate struck too early in deciding that, having regard to the provisions of Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code, the present prosecution could not be maintained. It is quite clear that the Magistrate ought not to have arrived at such a conclusion until he had an investigation of the facts put forward on behalf of the complainant. The order of the learned Magistrate must be set aside and the case remitted to his Court for being disposed of according to law....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›