Kolkata Court December 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.
Salim Sardar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-14-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.650
Beachcroft, J.1. This is a Rule tailing upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the petitioner should not be set aside. Eight persons were convicted under Sections 147 and 379, Indian Penal Code. Seven of them were sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment. One Abdul Bepari, who was also convicted under Section 325, Indian Penal Code, was sentenced to siX months rigorous imprisonment. All were also bound down to keep the peace for one year.2. It appears that there was some dispute regarding lands between the accused's party and the complainant's party. The complainant's party had taken some land which had originally been held by the accused's party but had been sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. On the day of the occurrence, in the morning, one Safat, who is a brother of the complainant Alimuddin, was said to have been assaulted when he went to plough some of the land so taken. On Safat's complaint, one Salim Sardar w...
Lakshman Chandra Ghose Vs. Bilash Roy Agarwala and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-10-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.175
1. This is a Reference under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge of Nadia, recommending that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer of Kushtia, which made an order under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, absolute, should be act aside. It appears that, when the present petitioners were sailed upon to show cause, they put in a petition in which they stated that the path which they were alleged to have obstructed was not a public path, and that proceeding ought not to be taken under Section 133, Criminal Procedure Code, and they asked for the appointment of a Jury. The learned Judge has recommend that the order should be set aside on the ground that it was for the Magistrate to decide whether the path in question was a public or a private one, and also whether the petitioners had any bona fide claim of right to the path. In so far as the learned Judge is of opinion that it was for the Magistrate to decide whether the path in question was a public or a p...
Durga Prosad Biswas and Vs. Ari Patar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.711
Beachcroft, J.1. An order was made by the Additional District Magistrate of Dacaa for the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, or any other applicable section, in connection with certain statements made by the petitioner as witness in a case tried by a Second Glass Magistrate. The Second Class Magistrate convicted the persons who were accused before him bat the Additional Magistrate, on appeal, set aside those convictions. He tools' a different view to the Trying Magistrate in regard to certain statements made by the petitioner with reference to a miras patta which had been prod used in the criminal case, and, owing to certain remarks which he had made in his judgment with regard to the petitioner, an application was made by the opposite-party to prosecute the petitioner for perjury, and it is against the sanction which was then given by the Additional District Magistrate that this Rule has been obtained by the petitioner.2. The matter in respect of which...
Maharajadhiraj Sir Bejoy Chand Mohatap Bahadur Vs. Krishna Chandra Muk ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal466,66Ind.Cas.357
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who are the putnidars of Lot Jamitta under the defendant No. 1, for recovery of certain chaukidari chakran lands on the ground that the lands are included in their putni.2. The lands were transferred on the 10th March 1915 to the defendant No. 1 (under the provisions of Act VI of 1870, B. C.) who, it appears, settled the same with the other defendants and kabuliyats were taken from to mo of them after the institution of the suit. The defense was that the plaintiffs were not entitled to these lands and that, at any rate, they were bound to take fresh settlement and pay additional rent for the lands.3. The Court below has held that the lands were included in the putni, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to get possession of the lands without payment of any additional rent. In the result, the suit was decreed, the defendants being ordered to pay means profits for a period of three years prior to the suit.4. The defendant No...
Ohaitanya Charan Set Vs. Mohammad Yusuf
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.407
Sanderson, C. J.1. This is an application by the plaintiff in the suit, for a certificate that this is a fit and proper case for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. There is no question as to the value of the subject matter of the suit, or the subject-matter of the appeal; bat it is urged on behalf of the respondent that the judgment of the High Court against which it is desired to appeal was one of affirmance and that there is no substantial question of law involved. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned Vakil for the plaintiff, that the judgment of this Court was not one of affirmance, and that, if it was one of affirmance, there is a substantial question of law involved.2. The suit was brought to recover damages for an alleged malicious prosecution. The First Court dismissed the (sic)auit without costs. The matte? then on me on appeal to the High Court and the decree of the High Court was as follows : 'It is ordered and decreed that the decree of the lower Court in so...
Raja Norendra Lal Khan Vs. Akhoy Kandar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.162
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Midnapur and on the opposite party to show cause why the orders of the lower Courts referred to in the petition should not be set aside and suit other or further order made as to this occur may seem fit and proper. The order referred to are, 17 W.R. 46 Cr, that of Mr. Jagat Chandri Mitra, and 1 A. 17 (F.B.) : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 11 that of the First Additional Special Judge of Midnapur. The case of the petitioner is, that the opposite party filed a kobala during the bearing of an application made by the petitioner against the opposite party under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The case was heard by Mr. Rajendra Nath Rakhit who found the Kobala to be a forgery. The said Mr. R.N. Rakhit is described in the petition as an Assistant Settlement Officer,' the more correct description would be Assistant 'Revenue Officer,' the term used in Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner applied to Mr...
Gopal Kahar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.171
1. The petitioner before us was a Polite spy. He gave information to the Police that a room in a brothel was being; used for the purpose of gambling. A search warrant was issued and the room was searched. There was no gambling going on at the time and the evidence is, that there were no instruments of gaming, no sards, and no dice found on the premises. The Polite Beems to have tome to the conclusion that the tharge was false and the petitioner was prosecuted for giving false information under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not disputed that, under that section, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the informer knew or believed the information to be false. See the cases of Moulvi Abdool Lutetf, In re 9 W.R. 31 Cr. and Rayan Hutti v. Emperor 26 M. 640 : 1 Weir 122 nd 190 : 2 Weir. At the trial, a number of witnesses were called on behalf of the prosecution. They included a prostitute, named Hem Nalini, who was the occupier of the room in question, her paramour, ...
Emperor Vs. Bharat Bipari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal501(1),62Ind.Cas.414
1. The fasts are practically undisputed. The two accused before us are husband and wife. They had had a certain number of children, all of whom died in their infancy. They were thus led to believe that there was an evil influence brooding over them and their children and they accordingly made a vow that, in order to exercise this evil influence, they would offer their next born to the crocodiles in a tank known as Khanjehan Ali tank, other wise known as Thakur Dighi, in the Sub Division of Bagerhat, They had another son born to them and when this child was about one month old, they protended with it to this Khanjehan Ali tank. They brought it to the bank of the tank, placed it there near the water's edge and balled to the crocodiles. Two crocodiles appeared and one of the two immediately caught up the child in its mouth and disappeared with it into the water, neither the crocodile nor the child re-appeared and there can be no doubt that the child was devoured by the crocodile. Their ex...
Abdul Hamid and ors. Vs. YasIn Munshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: 61Ind.Cas.513
Beachcroft, J.1. This Rule was issued at the instance of the first party. It calls upon the Magistrate and the second party to show cause why an opportunity should not be given to the first party to cross examine the witnesses of the second party who were examined before 15th May 1920, and also why, in the order made, the boundaries of the lands found to be in the possession of the second party should not be specified.2. With regard to the first point it appears that on 15th May five witneses who had been examined on behalf of the second party were to be cross--examined The Senior Pleader who appeared on behalf of the first party applied to the Magistrate to allow him to postpone his cross--examination till a later date as he was engaged elsewhere. The Magistrate does not appear to have fully appreciated the application. However, whether the mistake was that of the Magistrate or whether it was that of the Pleader, the Pleader was under the impression that his application had been grant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›