Kolkata Court July 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.
Hiralal Ghose Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Cal889
Newbould, J.1. The question we have to decide is whether an omission by a Court to comply with the provisions of Section 360, Cr.P.C., vitiates the trial. The provisions of the section are mandatory and in the case of two witnesses these provisions were totally disregarded. The test to be applied in deciding 'whether mandatory enactments' shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied 'nullification for disobedience' is to be found in the judgment of Lord Penzance in the case of Howard v. Bodington [1877] 2 P.D. 203 following the conclusion expressed by Lord Campbell when sitting as Lord Chancellor in the case of the Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner [1861] 30 L.J. Ch. 379, to which reference was made by the learned C.J. of this Court in the Government of Assam v. Sahebulla : AIR1924Cal1 . 'In each case you must look to the subject-matter, consider the importance of the provision that has been disregarded and the relation to the general object intended to be secured by...
The Government of Bengal Vs. Muchu Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal798
1. This is an appeal on behalf of Government against the acquittal of one Muchu Khan who was tried on the charge of murder. The ground that is pressed before us is that the jury was illegally selected. The facts, according to the affidavit which has been filed, are that on the day fixed for the trial, of the 14 of the special jurors three only appeared. The Sessions Judge waited for about an hour and no more came. Subsequently four gentlemen who happened to be in the precincts of the Court were called as jurors in the case. These were not chosen by lot and were not all in the jury list.2. We are unable to accept the contention that there was anything illegal in the procedure adopted Section 276, Cr. P.C., provides that in case of a deficiency of persons summoned the number of jurors required may with the leave of the Court be chosen from such other persons as may be present. This section being part of the proviso to Section 276, the words that ' the jurors should be chosen by lot ' can...
Prasanna Kumar De Mahajan Vs. Nanigopal De
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1175,90Ind.Cas.561
1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Chittagong reversing a decision of the Munsif. The suit of which this appeal arises was a suit for rent. The plaintiffs claim was that Defendant No. 18 was the proprietor of a certain taluk and that Defendant No. 18 had leased this out in sadar patni right to the plaintiff in March 1915 and that at the fame time four years' arrears of rent from 1911 do 1915 had been assigned by defendant No. 18 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendants other than Defendant No. 18 were tenants under him and claimed rent at the rate of Rs. 17 as. 8 a year. The case for the defendants, other than Defendant No. 18, was that they were neither the tenants under Defendant No. 18 nor under the plaintiff and, they asserted that neither of these persons had any title to any of the land. They say that their landlord was some other person named Raj Chandra Sen and that they had been paying rent...
Sh. Krishna Kamini Dasi Vs. Pratapendra Chandra Pandey and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1199,85Ind.Cas.790
1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was brought by the plaintiff for possession of two fisheries appertaining to the darpatni right in some mouzas purchased by the plaintiff at a sale in execution of a rent decree. The plaintiff look possession of those fisheries along with the other properties purchased by him on the 9th June 1915. On the 3rd December 1915 he applied to the Collector under Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act, to annul the encumbrance held by the defendants in respect of those fisheries. The appellant) (Defendant No. 3) had set up a seputni right under the darpatni which the plaintiff wanted to avoid. The notice was served by the Sub-Divisional Office;. Subsequently, when the plaintiff discovered that there was no strict compliance with the provision of Section 167, Bengal Tenancy Act, he filed a second application on the 5th August 1918, and notices were again served on the defendants. The present suit; is by the plaintiff for recovery of these jalkars. The de...
Bejoy Chand Mahatab Vs. Sarat Kumar Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1253
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover khas possession after declaration of his title of a tank known as Bara Bhatpukur with its banks. The plaintiff's case is that this tank is situated in Mouza Nari and within his zemindari Touzi No. 29b9 of Hughli Collectorate formerly Touzi No. 568 of 24-Parganas Collectorate in respect of 8-annas and in respect of other 8-annas share it was within the zemindari of Maharaj Kumar Tagore under whom Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were patnidars that the plaintiff was in possession but subsequently Defendant No. 1, as lessee under the Maharaja of Burdwan came into possession-The Burdwan Raj having had the tank recorded as being within Mouza Kallayanpore within its zemindari in the record-of-Rights, which was finally published in 1896. The learned Munsif found that originally the plaintiff with his co-sharers had title to this tank but that by adverse possession they had lost title and, therefore, he dismissed the suit. In appe...
Hira Lal Ghose Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal159
Newbould, J.1. The question we have to decide is whether an omission by a Court to comply with the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code vitiates the trial. The provisions of the section are mandatory, and in the case of two witnesses these provisions were totally disregarded. The test to be applied in deciding 'whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only, or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience,' is to be found in the judgment of Lord Penzance in the case of Howard v. Boding ton (1877) L. R. 2 P. D. 203, 211., following the conclusion expressed by Lord Campbell, when sitting as Lord Chancellor, in the case of the Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1860) 30 L. J. Ch. 379., to which reference was made by the learned Chief Justice of this Court in Government of Assam v. Sahebulla (1923) I. L. R. 51 Calc. 1: 'In each case you must look to the subject matter, consider the importance of the provision that has been disregarded and th...
Hira Lal Ghosh Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.905
Newbould, J.1. The question we have to decide is whether an omission by a Court to comply with the provisions of Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code, vitiates the trial. The provisions of the section are mandatory, and in the case of two witnesses these provisions were totally disregarded. The test to be applied in deciding 'whether mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory with an implied nullification for disobedience' is to be found in the judgment of Lord Penzance in the case of Howard v. Bodington (1877) 2 P.D. 203 at p. 211, following the conclusion expressed by Lord Campbell when sitting as Lord Chancellor in the case of the Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1860) 30 L.J.Ch 379 : 2 De.C.F. & J. 502 : 7 Jur. (N.S.) 150 : 3 L.T. (N.S.) 194 : 9 W.R. 292 : 129 R.R. 172 : 45 E.R. 715 to which reference was made by the learned Chief Justice of this Court in Government of Assam v. Sahebulla 75 Ind. Cas. 129 : 51 C. 1 : 38 C.L.J. 77 : 27 C.W.N. 857 : 24 Cr.L...
Hem Chandra Mukherjee and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal85,84Ind.Cas.649
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has bean Issued to show cause why the conviction of and the sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside on the first four grounds stated in the petition.2. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 213 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The grounds referred to above raise the question whether for a conviction under Section 213, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to establish that there has been concealment of an offence or the screening of a person from legal punishment or the abstention from proceeding against a person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment.3. The question is one not altogether free from difficulty and may be investigated from several points of view; moreover, as far as can be ascertained, it is not covered by any authority.4. Section 213 occurs in Chap. XI which is headed ' Of False Evidence and Offences. Against Public Justice. ' An...
Tarini Prosad Roy Vs. Deva Prasanna Mukherjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Cal925
1. The petitioner before us who obtained this Rule on the 5th of October 1920, purchased from a tenant in execution of his own mortgage decree certain land, In the year 1327 in the month of Pous, he got possession of the property through the Court. In the year 1919 prior to the sale in execution of the mortgage-decree the landlord of the land sued his tenant for rent in respect of the year 1322 to 1325. The landlord obtained a decree and the property was sold on the 25th October 1922 and was purchased by the landlord himself. The petitioner before us applied under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 90 alleging that the sale was not) a proper one and amongst other things that the sale proclamation had not been served. The Munsif gave effect to this contention. An appeal was preferred by the landlord to the District Judge against the Munsif's decision and the point there taken, on behalf of the landlord, was that the holding was a non-transferable occupancy holding, and the District Judge,...
Hemchandra Mukherjee Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1924
Reported in: (1925)ILR52Cal151
Mukerji, J.1. This Rule has been is sued to show cause why the conviction of, and the sentence passed upon, the petitioners should not be set aside on the first four grounds stated in the petition.2. The petitioners have been convicted under Section 213 of the Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The grounds referred to above raise the question whether, for a conviction under Section 213 of the Penal Code, it is necessary to establish that there has been a concealment of an offence, or the screening of a person from legal punishment, or the abstention from proceeding against a person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment.3. The question is one not altogether free from difficulty, and may be investigated from several points of view; moreover, as far as can be ascertained, it is not covered by any authority.4. Section 213 occurs in Chapter XI, which is headed 'Of false evidence and offences against public ju...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »