Kolkata Court December 1922 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.
Mahommed Yunus Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal517,77Ind.Cas.819
1. The appellant, Mahommed Yunus, has been convicted of abetment of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and of abetment of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon punishable under section; 324 and 326 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment on both counts, the sentences running concurrently.2. The appellant, who was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, was jointly tried with two Constables, Ahmad Ali and Kadamali, who were charged with offences punishable under Sections 304 and 326 read with sec ion 34, Indian Penal Code. Ahmadali was convicted on both charges and concurrent sentences of five years' rigorous imprisonment for each offence were passed'. We are informed that he has since died. Kadamali was acquitted.2. The occurrence which led to this trial took place at the Mirzapur Hat on Wednesday, the 8th June 1921. This hat is the 'property of the Bhawal Estate which is under the man...
Hamid Ali Vs. Sri Kissen GosaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: AIR1925Cal574
2. We have no alternative buff to accept this reference in view of the recant rulings of this Court. The finding and sentence must therefore be set aside and the trial resumed from the point where the Court examined the accused person after the examination of the prosecution witnesses was concluded. We would impress on the learned Magistrates the necessity for a strict observation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and where the terms of the Code are perfectly clear there is no excuse whatever (for a deliberate disregard of them....
Hamid Ali Vs. Srikissen GossaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1922
Reported in: 75Ind.Cas.367
1. We have no alternative but to accept this reference in view of the recent rulings of this Court.2. The finding and sentence must, therefore, be set aside and the trial resumed from the point where the Court examined the accused persons after the examination of the prosecution witness s concluded. We would impress on the learned Magistrate the necessity for a strict observation of the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure and where the terms of the Code are perfectly clear there is no excuse whatever for a deliberate disregard of them....
Sheikh Samir and ors. Vs. Beni Madhab Gope and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal644,75Ind.Cas.364
1. On the facts stated in the letter of reference, we think it desirable that both the cases should, be tried by one Magistrate, and the learned Sessions Judge's suggestion as to the order of trial accepted. We accordingly transfer the case in which Sheikh Samir is the complainant and Beni Madhab Gope and another accused from the file of Babu J.C., Mazumdar, Deputy Magistrate of Manikgunge, to the file of Babu J. Chakraverty, Sub-Deputy Magistrate of Manikgunge, and we also direct that the trial of the case in which Judisthir Gope is the complainant and Samir Sheikh and others accused be proceeded with and the proceedings in the case in which Sheikh Samir is the complainant be stayed until the disposal of the other case....
Shoshi Mukhi Debya and ors. Vs. Keshab Lall Mukerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal212
Greaves, J.1. This is an application by Srimati Shoshi Mukhi Debya to restrain Keshab Lall Mukerjee from proceeding with Case No. 138 of 1922 now pending before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal until the final determination of this suit, or in the alternative for the transfer of the case to this Court for determination with this suit or in the alternative for revision of the order of the Tribunal of the 14th August, 1922.2. The facts are shortly as follows:One Panchanon Bannerjee died on the 19th July 1878 leaving him surviving his widow, the Plaintiff Srimati Shoshi Mukhi, and three daughters. One daughter is dead and the surviving daughters are co-plaintiffs with her in the suit. Panchanon left a Will dated the 23rd June, 1878, whereby he appointed one Kenaram Bannerjee and one Tripura Sundari Debi executor and executrix. Probate was granted to Kenaram alone on the 4th December 1901 out of the Hughly Court. By Clause 8 of the Will if was provided that any of the executors should in ...
Atarmoyi Dasi Vs. Ramananda Sen Chowdhury
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: 84Ind.Cas.876
1. In this case we have had the advantage of hearing a learned and elaborate argument by Dr. Mitra, but after giving our best and anxious consideration to his argument, we have come to the conclusion that this second appeal must be dismissed. This appeal has arisen out of a suit for establishment of the plaintiff's title, for recovery of possession and for damages and for mesne profits. The circumstances which gave rise to the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, are, briefly stated, these: The appellant No. 1, Atarmoyi, purchased a plot of land about 1-or 2 bighas in area in execution of a decree against one Kandarpa Chaudhuri and three others in February 1913. She qbtained symbolical possession thereof on the 12th August 1914. The respondent Kamananda Sen Chaudhuri filed, on the 12th September 1914, an application purporting to be one under Order XXI, Rule 100, of the C.P.C, for recovery of possession of the property which had been sold in execution and which had been purchased...
Sm. Shoshi Mukhi Debya and ors. Vs. Keshab Lal Mukherji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-05-1922
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.598
1. This is an application by Srimathi Shoshi Mukhi Debya to restrain Keshab Lal Mukherji from proceeding with case No. 138 of 1922 now pending before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal until the final determination of this suit, or in the alternative for the transfer of the case to this Court for determination with this suit or in the alternative for revision of the order of the Tribunal of the 14th August 1922.2. The facts are shortly as follows: One Panchanon Bannerjee died on the 19th July 1878 leaving him surviving his widow, the plaintiff Srimathi Shoshi Mukhi, and three daughters. One daughter is dead and the surviving daughters are co-plaintiffs with her in the suit. Pachanon left a Will, dated the 23rd June 1878, whereby he appointed one Kenaram Bannerjee and one Tripura Sundari Debi executor and executrix. Probate was granted to Kenaram alone on the 4th December 1901 out of the Hughli Court. By Clause 8 of the Will it was provided that any of the executors should in case of dea...
Haro Nath Malo Vs. Ala Bux and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Cal182
ORDER1. On the 4th February 1921 the complainant Haro Nath Malo went to fish in Sonakani Fishery. At that time the accused and some other people of Gouripur and Bhatipara assembled near the fishery and forbade him to fish. As the complainant did not listen, the accused broke down his houses with the help of an elephant and on his opposition assaulted him and looted his property. The case was reported by the Police as one of mistake of law. It ultimately came to the trial Court and the 3 petitioners were summoned under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and they have been convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 25 each or in default rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each.2. The conviction and sentence of the trial Court has become vitiated and liable to be set aside inasmuch as requirements of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code and of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, have not been com-plied with. The trial Court after recording the Examination-in-chief of the prosecution witnesses...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›