Kolkata Court September 1923 Judgments
King-emperor Vs. Dhananjay Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal321
Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused Dhananjay Ray was charged with an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found him not guilty. The Sessions Judge, however, was of opinion that the verdict was not in accordance with the evidence and thought it necessary in the interests of justice to submit the case to the High Court.2. The case against the accused may be briefly stated. On the 6th October, 1922, the accused, who was the tahsildar of the Khararia Zemindars, lodged a first information at Mollahat police station against Ramgachia, Premchand and eleven other persons. His story shortly was that on the 4th October, while proceeding in a boat, he was accosted by the accused persons. Two of them, Ramgachia and Premchand, threatened him with does, forced him to unlock his box and stole Rs. 150. The police authorities made some arrests on the 9th October, but were not as expeditious in the conduct of th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dhananjoy Raha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal347
Mookerjee and Chatterjea, JJ.1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused Dhananjoy Raha was charged with an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found him not guilty. The Sessions Judge, however, was of opinion that the verdict was not in accordance with the evidence and thought it necessary in the interest of justice to submit the case to the High Court.2. The case against the accused may be briefly stated. On the 6th October, 1922, the accused who was the tahsildar of the Khararia zamindars, lodged a first information at Mollahat police-station against Ramgachia, Premchand and eleven other persons. His story shortly was that on the 4th October, while proceeding in a boat, he was accosted by the accused persons. Two of them, Ramgachia and Premchand, threatened him with daos, forced him to unlock his box and stole Rs. 150. The police authorities made some arrests on the 9th October, but were not as expeditious...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dhananjay Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-28-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.246
1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The accused Dhananjay Kay was charged with an offence under Section 211, Indian Penal Code. The Jury unanimously found him not guilty. The Sessions Judge, however, was of opinion that the verdict was not in accordance with the-evidence and thought it necessary in the interests of justice to submit the case to the High Court.2. The case against the accused may be briefly stated. On the 6th October 1922, the accused, who was the Tahsil-dar of the Khararia Zemindars, lodged a first information at Mollahat Police Station against Ramgachia, Premchand and eleven other persons. His story shortly was that on the 4th October, while proceeding in a boat, he was accosted by the accused persons. Two of them, Ramgachia and Premchand, threatened him with daos, forced him to unlock his box and stole Rs. 150. The Police Authorities made some arrests on the 9th October, but were not as expeditious in the conduct of their enquiry a...
Tag this Judgment!The King Emperor Vs. Barendra Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal257
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for review of a criminal case on the certificate of the Advocate-General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghose was tried on the 16th and 17th August at the fourth Criminal Sessions of this year by Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury, on a charge of offences punishable under sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and guilty to the second count. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, with the result that the accused was convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302. On the 22nd August an application was made on his behalf to the Advocate-General for a certificate under clause 26 of the Letters Patent. On the 27th August, the Advocate-General heard Counsel for the prisoner in support of the application. On the 29th August, the Advocate-General granted a certificate in the following terms:Certificate of the Advocate-General of Bengal under cl...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Barendra Kumar Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-26-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.353
Mookerjee, J.1. This is an application for review of a criminal case on the certificate of the Advocate-General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. The petitioner Barendra Kumar Ghosh was tried on the 16th and 17th August at the Fourth Criminal Sessions of this year, by Mr. Justice Page and a Special Jury, on a charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and guilty to the second count. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty of murder, with the result that the accused was convicted and sentenced to deatli under Section 302. On the 22nd August, an application was made on his behalf to the Advocate-General for a certificate under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. On the 27th August, the Advocate-General heard Counsel for the prisoner in support of the application. On the 29th August, the Advocate-General granted a certificate in the following terms:2. 'Certificate of the Advocate General of Bengal u...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. Akbar Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal449
Mookerjee, J.1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of six accused persons; they were tried jointly with four others who have been acquitted by the Court below.2. The circumstances antecedent to the prosecution may be briefly stated. There was a long-standing dispute with regard to the possession of a tract of land whereof the Chowdhuris were the zemindars. The case for the prosecution is that on the 9th August, 1922, the party of the accused made an attempt to take forcible possession of the land with the result that violence was used on both sides. Two persons named Sariat and Sarafat were shot. Sariat died in hospital on the 11th August, 1922. Sarafat survived and has given evidence at the trial in support of the prosecution. The case for the defence is that the land was in the possession of the party of the accused and that the complainants were the aggressors. It is further asserted that the complainants in their desire to obtain forcibl...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Akbar Molla and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-19-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR51Cal271,81Ind.Cas.261
Mookerjee and Chatterjea, JJ.1. This is a reference under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of six accused persons; they were tried jointly with four others who have been acquitted by the Court below.2. The circumstances antecedent to the prosecution may be briefly stated. There was a long standing dispute with regard to the possession of a tract of land whereof the Chowdhuries were the Zemindars. The case for the prosecution is that on the 9th August, 1922, the party of the accused made an attempt to take forcible possession of the land with the result that violence was used on both sides. Two persons named Sariat and Sarafat were shot. Sariat died in hospital on the 11th August, 1922; Sarafat survived and has given evidence at the trial in support of the prosecution. The case for the defence is that the land was in the possession of the party of the accused and that the complainants were the aggressors. It is further asserted that the complainants in their desire ...
Tag this Judgment!Nandi Ram Alias Nandi Lal Agrani Vs. Jogendra Chandra Dutta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Cal881
Mookerjee, J.1. This is a Rule for the review of the judgment of this Court in Nanda Lal Agrani v. Jogendra Chandra Dutta A.I.R. [1923] Cal. 53. A preliminary question of considerable importance has been raised with regard to the amount of Court-fee pay -able on the application. We have heard the Assistant Government Pleader as the matter affects the public revenue and the point must be examined before we consider the application on the merits.2. The subject-matter of the appeal was valued at Rs. 7,750, and on the 20th December 1919, a Court-fee of Rs. 385 was paid on the memorandum in accordance with the table of rates of ad valorem fees embodied in Schedule I of the Court Fees Act 1870. The appeal was thereupon registered and was heard in due course. Judgment was pronounced on the 29th August, 1922, when the appeal was dismissed with costs. On the 21st November, 1922, the appellant presented the application for review of judgment now under consideration. The application bore a Court-...
Tag this Judgment!Nanda Lal Agrani Vs. Jogendra Chandra Datta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-18-1923
Reported in: 82Ind.Cas.297
1. This is a Rule for the review of the judgment of this Court in Nanda Lal Agrani v. Jogendra Chandra Datta 70 Ind. Cas. 960 : 36 C.L.J. 421; (1923) A.I.R. (C.) 53.2. A preliminary question of considerable importance has been raised with regard to the amount of Court-fee payable on the application. We have heard the Assistant Government Pleader as the matter affects the public revenue and the point must be examined before we consider the application on the merits.3. The subject-matter of the appeal was valued at Rs. 7,750, and on the 20th December, 1919, a Court-fee of Rs. 385 was paid on the memorandum in accordance with the table of rates of ad valorem fees embodied in Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, 1870. The appeal was thereupon registered and was heard in due course. Judgment was pronounced on the 29th August, 1922 when the appeal was dismissed with costs. On the 21st November, 1922, the appellant presented the application for review of judgment now under consideration. The app...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›