Kolkata Court September 1920 Judgments
Shamsul Haq Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal344,64Ind.Cas.369
1. This petitioner Shamsul Huq, a taxi driver, was prosecuted for some petty offence under the Motor Car Act by one Sergeant Alchin.2. On the 16th June the case against the petitioner was dismissed and on the 21st June the petitioner is said to have offered Re. 1 to the Sergeant as a bribe to withdraw the charge which the Sergeant had brought against him.3. As stated above, the case against the petitioner had already been dismissed on the 16th June. The petitioner says that he was aware of that fact. He has examined a Writer Head Constable (Motor Vehicles Department), who says that the petitioner went to him on the 16th and that he was informed by the witness that he (the accused) had been discharged. The Trying Magistrate, however, did not believe this witness and was of opinion that one rupee was offered to the Sergeant in ignorance of the case having been dismissed against the petitioner.4. The question is whether the petitioner can be convicted under Section 161/109, Indian Penal C...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: an Attorney
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Cal267,61Ind.Cas.908
Greaves, J.1. This is an application that an Attorney, referred to in the papers before me, should explain and answer the matters referred to in paragraphs Nos. 19 and 20 of the petition, and I am asked to issue a Rule that will go before a Bench of three Judges, in order that the matters now complained of may be investigated before that Bench and dealt with by the Bench in such manner as seems right to them.2. The questions arise with regard to a suit which I tried in February of this year and with regard to certain receipts for payments made to doctors which were produced by the defense in the course of the trial before me. It appears that on the 22nd August 1918 the guardian for the infant defendant swore an affidavit of documents on her behalf in this suit. The affidavit was undoubtedly prepared by the Attorney whose conduct is now tailed in question. In paragraph No. 15 of the Attorney's affidavit filed herein on the 28th August 1920, I have some explanation with regard to the pre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›