Kolkata Court October 1923 Judgments
Barendra Kumar Ghose Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal545
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Clause 41 of the Letters Patent, which is in the following terms:41. And we do further ordain, that from any judgment, order, or sentence of the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction, or in any criminal case, where any point or points of law have been reserved for the opinion of the said High Court in manner hereinbefore provided, by any Court which has exercised original jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for the person aggrieved by such judgment, order, or sentence to appeal to Us, Our heirs, or Successors in Council; provided the said High Court shall declare that the case is a fit one for such appeal, and under such conditions as the said High Court may establish or require, subject always to such rules and orders as we may, with the advice of Our Privy Council, hereafter make in that behalf.2. The petitioner Barendra Kum...
Tag this Judgment!Barendra Kumar Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-08-1923
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.580
1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council under Clause 41 of the Letters Patent, which is in the following terms:41. And We do further ordain that, from any judgment, order or sentence of the said High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made in the exercise of Original Criminal Jurisdiction, or in any criminal case where any point or points of law have been re-served for the opinion of the said High Court in manner hereinbefore provided, by any Court which has exercised Original Jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for the person aggrieved by such judgment, order, or sentence to appeal to Us, Our heirs or successors in Council; provided the said High Court shall declare that the case is a fit one for such appeal and under such conditions as the said High Court may establish or require, subject always to such rules and orders as We may, with the advice of Our Privy Council, hereafter make in that behalf.2. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghose was pla...
Tag this Judgment!Phillip E. Billinghurst Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal338
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the sentence passed by this Court in a criminal appeal.2. The petitioner Billinghurst was tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on the 1st September, 1919; the trial began on the 7th June, 1921; the hearing was finished on the 22nd August, 1922; and the judgment was delivered on the 28th November, 1922. The petitioner was found guilty on each of the two charges and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner there upon preferred an appeal to this Court. The appeal was heard by Sanderson, C.J. and Richardson, J. their judgment was pronounced on the 31st May, 1923. The decision of the Magistrate as to the first charge was upheld, while the conviction under the second charge was set aside; and the sentence was re...
Tag this Judgment!Phillipe Billinghurst Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-05-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.763
Asutosh Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from the sentence passed by this Court in a criminal appeal.2. The petitioner Billinghurst was tried by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested on the 1st September 1919; the trial began on the 7th June 1921; the hearing was finished on the 22nd August 1922; and the judgment was delivered on the 28th November 1922. The petitioner was found guilty on each of the two charges and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The petitioner thereupon preferred an appeal to this Court. The appeal was heard by Sanderson, C.J., and Richardson, J; their judgment was pronounced on the 31st May 1923. The decision of the Magistrate as to the first charge was upheld, while the conviction under the second charge was set aside; and the sentence was...
Tag this Judgment!Mamfru Chowdhury and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal323
Mookerjee, J.1. This is a Reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of fifteen accused persons; they were tried jointly with another who has been acquitted by the Court below. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 325 read with Sections 149, 343 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The jury returned a divided verdict. By a majority of four to one, the jury found all the accused not guilty of all the. charges. The minority verdict was that all the accused, except Abdul Kader, were guilty of all the charges except the change under Section 379. The Sessions Judge accepted the unanimous verdict that Abdul Kader was not guilty, and that Anwar Ali was not guilty under Section 379. He further accepted the verdict of the majority of the jury in so far as they acquitted Mamfru Chowdhury, Fateh Chowdhury and Lakshmikanta of the charge under Section 148; but he declined to accept the majority verdict in other respects and decided to refer the case of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mamfru Chaudhuri Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal418
Mookerjee and Chatterjea, JJ.1. This is a reference under Section 807 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of fifteen accused persons; they were tried jointly with another who has been acquitted by the Court below. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148 and 325 read with Sections 149, 343 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The Jury returned a divided verdict. By a majority of four to one, the Jury found all the accused not guilty of all the charges. The minority verdict was that all the accused except Abdul Kader were guilty of all the charges except the charge under Section 379. The Sessions Judge accepted the unanimous verdict that Abdul Kader was not guilty and that Anwar Ali was not guilty under Section 379. He further accepted the verdict of the majority of the Jury in so far as they acquitted Mamfru Chaudhuri, Fateh Chaudhury and Lakshmikanta of the charge under Section 148; but he declined to accept the majority verdict in other respects and decided to refe...
Tag this Judgment!Mamfru Chowdhury and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-03-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.264
1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedur Code in respect of fifteen accused persons; they were tried jointly with another who has been acquitted by the Court below. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 325 read with Section 149,343 and 379, Indian Penal Code. The Jury returned a divided verdict. By a majority of four to one the Jury found all the accused not guilty of all the charges. The minprity verdict was that all the accused, except Abdul Kader, were guilty of all the charges except the charge under Section 379. The Sessions Judge accepted the unanimous verdict that Abdul Kader was not guilty and that Anwar AH was not guilty under Section 379. He further accepted the verdict of the majority of the Jury in so far as they acquitted Mamfru Chowdhury, Fateh Chowdhury and Lakahmikanta of the charge under Section 148; but he declined to accept the majority verdict in other respects and decided to refer the case of the accused othr than...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendra Nath Chakrabarthi Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal476
Mookerjee, J.1. This rule, which was granted by Suhrawardy and Chotzner, JJ., on the 29th August, 1923, calls upon the District Magistrate of Alipore to show cause why the petitioner Nagendranath Chakrabarti should not be let out on bail. As the rule has been opposed on behalf of the Grown, the facts material for the determination of the question must be narrated in detail.2. The petitioner, who was arrested on the 5th August, 1.923, by Inspector Hernchandra Lahiri of the Calcutta Police, asserts that ho is a motor mechanic and driver and holds certificates of good character from various gentlemen, Indian and European, who have employed him during the last ten years. He further alleges that at the time of his arrest his house was thoroughly searched but nothing suspicions or incriminating was found. The petitioner, after his arrest on the 5th August, is said to have been produced on the 16th August before a Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom he applied for bail; but the application ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Matter of Nagendra Nath Chakravarti
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-01-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal402
Mookerjee and Chatterjea, JJ.1. This Rule, which was granted by Suhrawardy and Chotzner JJ. on the 29th August, 1923, calls upon the District Magistrate of Alipore to show cause why the petitioner Nagendra Nath Chakravarti should not be let out on bail. As the rule has been opposed on behalf of the Crown, the facts material for the determination of the question must be narrated in detail.2. The petitioner, who was arrested on the 5th August, 1923, by Inspector Hem Chandra Lahiri of the Calcutta Police, asserts that he is a motor mechanic and driver and holds certificates of good character from various gentlemen, Indian and European, who have employed him during the last ten years. He further alleges that at the time of his arrest his house was thoroughly searched, but nothing suspicious or incriminating was found. The petitioner after his arrest on the 5th August, is said to have been produced on the 16th August, before a Deputy Commissioner of Police to whom he applied for bail; but t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›