Kolkata Court November 1920 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.
Abdul Jabbar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal152,66Ind.Cas.65
1. The only question raised in this case is, whether an appeal lies to the Sessions Court when a Magistrate of the First Class has convicted an accused person of more offenses than one and has sentenced him for each offence to imprisonment for one month directing, at the same time, that the sentences should run concurrently. This question has been before this Court before. In the case of Bepin Behary Dey v. Emperor 11 Ind. Cas. 255 : 15 C. W. N. 734 : 15 C. L. J. 82, 12 Cr. L. J. 391. Mr. Justice Holmwood and Mr. Justice Sharfuddin held that the sentences must be taken in the aggregate or added together and that an appeal lay. A similar decision was arrived at by Mr. Justice Holmwood and Mr. Justice Imam in the case of Abdul Khalek v. Emperor 17 Ind. Cas. 813 : 17 C. W. N. 72 : 13 Cr. L. J. 877. In a later ease, however, Suknandan Singh v. Emperor 17 Ind. Cas. 531 : 17 C. L. J. 392 : 13 Cr, L. J. 757. Mr. Justice Carnduff and Mr. Justice Imam same to a different conclusion and the cons...
Prayag Singh Vs. Mrs. Morgan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.190
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This was a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of the 24-Pergannas to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed upon him should not be set aside, or why such other order should not be made as to this Court might seem fit and proper. The charge against the petitioner was that he on the 14th of February 1920 committed house-trespass by entering the room of Charitra Singh, in order to cause annoyance to the said Charitra Singh by taking away Lalia Dasadin, and thereby committed an offense punishable under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of the Magistrate at Barrackpur. The charge was investigated by the learned Magistrate, Mr. Haris Chandra Sarkar, and he convicted the petitioner under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 30, in default to ore month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The material fasts which it is nesessary for me to state are as follows: 'M...
Ram Bistu Majhi Vs. Joy Ram Majhi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.174a
Ghose, J.1. The present Rule was issued on an application arising out of an order under Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Bankura and dated 25th May 1990. The proceedings in this matter were drawn up under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code and after certain evidence had been adduced by tuth the parties the Magistrate coma to the conclusion that, in his opinion, the subject-matter of the dispute, namely, a palm grove was held jointly by both the first and the second parties, who were quarrelling and fighting among themselves as regards their respective share in the property concerned. It has been argued before us that the Magistrate having found in this case that two parties were claiming exclusive possession of the property concerned, and that the property was held jointly by bath the parties, it is not a case which can be dealt with under the provisions of Section 145 or Section 146, Criminal Procedure Code, and in support of this content...
Banwari Karmakar Vs. Gosto Behari Karmakar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.655
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. In my judgment this Rule must be made absolute.2. The charge against the accused was under Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code. To appreciate the meaning of that section it is necessary to refer to Sections 425 and 23 of the same Code; and, when those section are read, it is clear that, in order to substantiate an offense under Section 430, the prosecution must prove that there has been unlawful and intentional interference on the part of the accused with the admitted or proved rights of the complainant. In this case the finding of the District Magistrate is this: 'It is clear from the evidence that the tank formerly had a nala which has been closed by the appellant. The inference is, that it was used for irrigation. That it was so used regularly is not shown the fact evidently is that the water wad taken only in a year of draught like last year and the claim for regular use for irrigation in cold weather is possibly due to the present profits to be obtained...
MafizuddIn Khan Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal557,61Ind.Cas.793
1. This Rue has been granted on the second ground in the petition which was as follows: ' For that the trial has been vitiated by the fast that the Trial Court admitted evidence of case diaries, confessions, and statements of persons who have not been examined, etc., which are all inadmissible in evidence.' The learned Vakil who appeared in support of the Rule has told us that he does not rely upon the alleged improper admission of evidence of case-diaries or the statement of persons who have not been examined and, we have, therefore, to deal with the admission of confession only.2. Now, it appears that the confession of a man sailed Mukti was pat in evidence. Mukti was one of the persons involved in the Section 110, Criminal Procedure Code, case. But the confession which is alleged to have been made was made when he (Makti) and Mafiz, the present petitioner, were co accused in another ease, which, we are informed, was a dacoity case. In my judgment, that confession was not admissible ...
Ranada Ranjan Bhattacharjee Vs. Bharat Chandra Saha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal631,62Ind.Cas.180
1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The Rule was issued on the second ground in the petition, which was as follows: For that having regard to the admission of both parties that there was no likelihood of a breach of the pease, the learned Magistrate ought to have enquired into and de-sided that point first and the subsequent pro-seeding was without jurisdiction. Under Section 145 the Magistrate has jurisdiction to take proceedings if he is satisfied from the Police report or other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the pease exists. Then it is open to either of the parties under Sub-section (5) of Section 145 to show that no such dispute exists or has existed. If a party succeeds in doing that, the Magistrate must cancel his order, but subject to that cancellation the order of the Magistrate under Sub-section (1) shall be final. The effect of this is that unless a party is in a positi...
Rasik Chandra Hore and anr. Vs. Jagabandhu Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.326
Beachcroft, J.1. This Rule was issued on the second ground stated in the petition, namely, that there being nothing to show that there was any likelihood of a breach of the pease between the first and the second parties on the one hand and the third party on the other, there was no foundation for a proceeding under Section 145 so far as the third party was concerned and the whole of the proceedings were without jurisdiction. To understand the meaning of this it is necessary to state the facts. The proceeding was originally drawn up in respect of three persons,--two members of the first party and one person who is the second party. The dispute concerned a jalkar. Subsequently a number of other persons applied to be added as parties to the proceeding. They alleged that the jalkar was theirs, they being co sharer landlords. They alleged at the same time that there was no likelihood of a breach of the peace. The case was transferred from the Magistrate who initiated the proceeding, and the...
Rajani Kanta De and ors. Vs. Debendra Nath Singh Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.520
Beachcroft, J.1. The Rule was issued at the instance of the first party in a proceeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The dispute related to a large tract of land--some 300 bighas in extent. The Sub--Divisional Officer of Kalna, in the Burdwan District, proceeded, in the first instance, to deal with the matter as if the land in dispute was within his jurisdiction in spite of an objection by the second party that the land was within the Nadia District. The second party then name up to this Court and obtained an order from this Court that the Magistrate before proceeding with the merits of the case, should decide, whether the land lay within the local limits of his jurisdiction or not. The Magistrate has now decided that the land is without his jurisdiction. The first party has obtained this Rule calling on the Magistrate and the opposite party to show cause why the order should not be set aside on the ground that the land in dispute is within the jurisdiction of the Burdwa...
Romesh Chandra Sarkar and anr. Vs. Mohim Chandra Guha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-29-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.174
Beachcroft, J.1. This Rule was issued a the instance of the second party to a pro seeding under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. The point made on behalf of the first party is, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make the order which he did because he was unable to find which party was in actual possession and that, in making his order, he should not have relied on the superiority of title of the second party. Now, there is no question, of coerce, that in a proceeding under Section 145 the Magistrate is not entitled to rely simply on the question of title. He can use evidence of title to supplement evidence of possession; and this is really all that the Magistrate has done in this case. What he has said is, that the evidence of possession is not quite satisfactory on either side. Then he finds that the second party has a better title than the first party and, finally, he finds that the probabilities are in favour of Mohin Babu, i.e., the first party, being; in possession of...
Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs Vs. Kajal Hoaladar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-26-1920
Reported in: 62Ind.Cas.187
Superintendent Sanderson, C.J.1. This is the appeal by the Government from an order made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Bhola. The respondent was charged with offenses under Sections 143 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code. Shortly stated, the gist of the charge was that the respondent had out some paddy after the peon, an officer of the Court, had attached it in pursuance of an order which was made on the 2nd December 1919, The rent which was alleged to be payable, and in respect of which the order of distraint had been made, according to the facts which have been placed before us, was payable on the 15th of Agrahayan 1326 (which corresponds to the 1st of December 1919). Consequently, on the 16th Agrahayan 1326 (the 2nd of December) the rent was in arrear--that is clear from Section 54(3) of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which provides as follows: 'Any instalment or part of an instalment of rent not duly paid at or before the time when it falls due shall be deemed an arrear.' The order fo...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »