Kolkata Court November 1924 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.
Cheragali Bepari and anr. Vs. Satish Chandra Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.847
1. As to the two grounds upon which this Rule was issued, we are of opinion that they are not well-founded. The grounds are to the effect that the present proceedings are barred by the provisions of Section 403, Cr. P.C., and that the facts alleged in the petition of complaint and examination of the complainant under Section 200, Cr. P.C., do not constitute in law the offence of forgery within the meaning of that word as used in the Indian Penal Code. But on a reference to the judgment of the learned Deputy Magistrate who dealt with the case against the accused that is referred to in the petition we find that the present proceedings should not have been allowed to be instituted. The learned Magistrate went very carefully into the cases setup on behalf of the parties, dealt exhaustively with the evidence that was adduced in the case, considered the probabilities thereof, and came to the conclusion that the culpability of the accused had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Alth...
Rahanaddy Patwary and ors. Vs. Hasan Ali Jamadar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-07-1924
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.126
1. This Rule has been issued upon grounds Nos. 2 and 3 of the petition. So far as ground No. 2 is concerned, there is no substance in it, as the learned District Magistrate did not pass the order instituting proceedings in the exercise of his Revisional Jurisdiction. He has made it perfectly plain that the order was passed after he took cognizance of the matter as a Court of Original Jurisdiction and that he did not revise the order of the other Magistrate but ordered the drawing up of proceedings under Section 133, Cr.P.C. as a Court of Original Jurisdiction.2. The other ground is clearly well-founded. The procedure adopted in this case was not in conformity with what is laid down in Section 139-A, Cr.P.C., and Sections 137 and 138, Cr.P.C. It is quite clear that when there is a denial of the existence of the public right, it is the duty of the Magistrate to inquire into this matter and come to a conclusion under the provisions of Section 139-A and on the result of this conclusion wou...
Golam Bari Gazi Vs. Yar Ali Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal480a
1. The learned vakil appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party seeks to justify the remark which was noted in the deposition of P.W. No. 2 by a reference to the provisions of Section 363, Cr. P.C. That section no doubt empowers a Magistrate to record such remarks, if any, as he thinks material respecting the demeanour of such witness whilst under examination. The remark in question is in these words: -' The witness falters and from his demeanour it appears that he has not told the truth.' It is clear that so far at any rate P.W. No. 2 is concerned, the witness has been altogether disbelieved by the Magistrates and they have taken the trouble of recording the fact while recording the deposition of the said witness. This in our opinion is a matter which must be taken into consideration in determining whether the case should go on before the Magistrates any longer. We think that on the whole it is desirable that the case should be transferred to the file of some Magistrate other than the ...
Gadadhar Sarkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-04-1924
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.845
1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 368, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, on a second trial held by the Additional Sessions Judge and a Jury, the Jury having on this occasion brought in a unanimous, verdict of guilty: on the said charge.2. The point that has been urged in support of this appeal is that the directions of the learned Judge on the question of knowledge'--knowledge on the part of the appellant that the girl was abducted--are defective.3. The learned Judge's charge is an elaborate one, very fully dealing with the evidence and circumstances of the case, and he set out the details of the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence punishable under Section 368, Indian Penal Code with punctilious care. There is, however, an unfortunate defect, and that, in our opinion, a serious one, as regards his presentation of the facts and circumstances relating to 'knowledge.'4. He first of all told the Jury that one of the es...
Bahadur Molla and ors. Vs. Ismail and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal329
Mukerji, J.1. The question involved in this Rule is whether a convicted per-son has a right of appeal, generally speaking, from an order passed against him under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code.2. As far as we have been able to discover there is no reported decision of this Court on the point. The point was considered by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Upper Burmah in the case of Mi Shwe Nyun v. King-Emperor [1904] 1 Cr. L.J. 543 and the Chief Court of the Punjab in the case of Emperor v. Manohar Das [1904] 24 P.R. 1904 Cr., which latter decision has been afterwards followed by the same Court in the case of Hayata v. Emperor [1917] 20 P.R. 1917 Cr.. The Allahabad High Court appears to have followed the ruling of the Punjab Chief Court, see the case of Emperor v. Ghasite [1915] 37 All. 31.3. All the above decisions are in favour of the view that an appeal does lie from an order passed under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code.4. From a consideration of the provisions of ...
Sarat Chandra Kar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal821
1. The principal ground urged in this appeal is that the ejahar (Ex. 1), which was treated as a dying declaration of the deceased, was not legally proved in the case, and, therefore, was wrongly admitted in evidence. In support of this contention reliance has been placed upon the decisions in the cases of the Empress v. Samiruddin (1881) 8 Cal. 211, King-Emperor v. Mathura Thakur (1901) 6 C.W.N. 72, King-Emperor v. Daulat Kunjra (1902) 6 C.W.N. 921 and some other cases of this Court, and it was contended that the cases of Gouridas Namasudra v. Emperor (1908)36 Cal. 659 and Emperor v. Balaram Das A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 382, in so far as they purport to take a different view, were wrongly decided, or at any rate are distinguishable. We do not propose to decide this point, as in our opinion the appeal succeeds on one of the several other grounds urged, and there must be a re-trial of the case.2. It appears that at the close of the prosecution case the learned Sessions Judge, on the 12th April 1...
Pramatha Nath Sanyal Vs. Kali Kumar Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal714
Mukerji, J.1. These two rules relate to convictions under Section 92 (5) of the Indian Companies Act (VII of 1913).2. In No. 648 the petitioner as representing the Bengal Miscellany, Ltd., a Company registered under the Act, and in No. 649 the Petitioner as Secretary thereof, has been so convicted for issuing an advertisement in a daily newspaper named ' Forward ' on the 24th June, 1924 without filing a copy thereof with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies for registration on or before the date of its publication, as-required by the Act.3. The ground upon which the convictions are challenged put shortly, is that the advertisement in question is not a prospectus within the meaning of the Act but specifically refers to a prospectus, copy whereof had admittedly been already filed with the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. It is urged that if the prospectus of the Company has already been filed with the Registrar as it has been on the 2nd September, 1921, and the advertisement already...
Abdur Rahim and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal928
1. These are two References made by the Sessions Judge of Sylhet recommending that two commitments by which 44 and 8 accused persons respectively were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial under Section 120B, 489 A, 489B, 489C and 489D of the Indian Penal Code be quashed and a fresh enquiry, preliminary to commitment, ordered on the ground that the provisions of Section 860, Cr. P.C., were not compiled with in enquiries that were held.2. It appears that after the respective commitments in which altogether over 300 witnesses were examined, the two cases were made over to the Assistant Sessions Judge and on trial being commenced by him, 102 witnesses for the prosecution were examined but the provisions of Section 360, Cr. P.C., were not com-plied with in respect of any of them; that thereafter the attention of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge being drawn to the decision of this Court in the case of Hira Lal Ghose v. The King-Emperor : AIR1924Cal889 , the procedure of complying...
Sarat Chandra Kar Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal446
Suhrawardy and Mukerji, JJ.1. The principal ground urged in this appeal is that the ejahar (Ex. 1), which was treated as a dying declaration of the deceased, was not legally proved in the case, and, therefore, was wrongly admitted in evidence. In support of this contention reliance has been placed upon the decisions in the cases of the Empress v. Samiruddin (1881) I. L. R. 8 Calc. 211. King-Emperor v. Mathura Thakur (1901) 6 C. W. N. 72. King-Emperor v. Daulat Kunjra (1912) 6 C. W. N. 921. and some other cases of this Court, and it was contended that the cases of Gouridas Namasudra v. Emperor (1908) I. L. R. 36 Calc. 659. and Emperor v. Balaram Das (1921) I. L. R. 49 Calc. 358. in so far as they purport to take a different view, were wrongly decided, or at any rate are distinguishable. We do not propose to decide this point, as in our opinion the appeal succeeds on one of the several other grounds urged, and there must be a re-trial of the case.2. It appears that at the close of the pr...
Bahadur Molla Vs. Ismail
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-03-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal463
Mukerji, J.1. The question involved in this Rule is whether a convicted person has a right of appeal, generally speaking, from an order passed against him under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. As far as we have been able to discover there is no reported decision of this Court on the point. The point was considered by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Upper Burma in the case of Mi Shwe Nyun v. King-Emperor (1904) 1 Cr. L.J. 543. and the Chief Court of the Punjab in the case of Emperor v. Manohar Das (1904) 1 Cr. L. J. 1098; which latter decision has been afterwards followed by the same Court in the case of Hayata v. Emperor (1916) 18 Cr. L. J. 401. The Allahabad High Court appears to have followed the ruling of the Punjab Chief Court, see the case of Emperor v. Ghasite (1914) I. L. R. 37 All. 31, 33. (1504) P. R. No. 24.3. All the above decisions are in favour of the view that an appeal does lie from an order passed under Section 562 of the Criminal Procedure Code....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »