Kolkata Court February 1925 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.
Executive Engineer, Nadia Rivers Division Vs. Ashutosh Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal921,(1925)ILR52Cal573
Newbould and Ghose, JJ.1. We are unable to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that, in order to support a conviction under Section 78 of the Bengal Embankment Act of 1882, on the ground that the accused by any wilful act destroyed or diminished the efficiency of an embankment, it is necessary that there should be a finding that the accused acted mala fide. This section of the statute appears to make punishable acts endangering embankments even when the offender had no mens rea. The learned Sessions Jqdge appears to have read the section as if the words were 'wilfully destroys or diminishes the efficiency of such embankment.' The qualification is not in respect of the ultimate result of the act, but the act itself. In this case it cannot be denied that the petitioner wilfully excavated and extended his tank, and it is found that the result of that was to injure the public embankment. This is sufficient to support the conviction. Let the papers be returned....
Durjodhan Bhat Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1226,(1925)ILR52Cal666
Newbould and Ghose, JJ.1. We think that the order of the Magistrate, on which this case was based, cannot be regarded as a complaint as required by Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it has been amended. We, accordingly, make the Rule absolute, and quash the proceedings now pending against the petitioner. This will be no bar to proceedings being again instituted against him if the Magistrate thinks proper to make a complaint in proper form....
Kasem Molla and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: 90Ind.Cas.440
1. The four appellants before us were tried before the Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a Jury on various charges of offences committed in the course of a riot in which they were accused of having taken part. The first two appellants were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 304/149, Indian Penal Code and two years' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently. The third appellant was sentenced to five years', rigorous imprisonment under Section 304/149, and no separate sentence was passed on his conviction under Section 147, Indian Penal Code. The fourth appellant was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147, Indian Penal Code.2. As regards the appellant Basir Sardar a special point is taken, and that is that his conviction should be set aside on the ground of illegality in the proceedings before the Committing Magistrate. Five persons were committed to the Court of Sessions in thi...
Kasem Molla and ors. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal410
1. The four appellants before us were tried before the Sessions Judge of Faridpur and a jury on various charges of offences committed in the course of a riot in which they were accused of having taken part. The first two appellants were sentenced to 7 years, rigorous imprisonment each under Section 301/149 Indian Penal Code and two years' rigorous imprisonment each under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently, The third appellant was sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment under S.S04/ 149, and no separate sentence was passed on his conviction under Section 147, I.P.C. The fourth appellant was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 I.P.C.2. As regards the appellant Basir Sardar a special point is taken, and that is that his conviction should be set aside on the ground of illegality in the proceedings before the committing Magistrate. Five persons were committed to the Court of Sessions in this case one of whom has been acquitted. T...
Emperor Vs. Premananda Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal876
Mukerji, J.1. The accused Premananda Dutt was tried by the Sessions Judge of Chittagong with the aid of a jury on a charge under Section 302, I.P.C., for causing the death of one Prafulla Kumar Roy by shooting him on the paltan ground in the town of Chittagong on the evening of 25th May 1924 at about 8-30 P. m. The jury brought in a unanimous verdict of not guilty, and the learned Judge having disagreed with the same, has submitted the case to us under the provisions of Section 807, Cr. P.C.2. In the course of an elaborate summing up, which is remarkable for its lucidity and its fairness, the learned Judge has set out all the facts and circumstances of the case and the various points that arise for consideration and his charge has been of immense assistance to us in dealing with the case.3. The accused Premananda Dutt, according to his own statement, was a Preventive Officer in the Customs Department, which appointment), he says, he resigned and he became a congress volunteer. He appea...
Rahamali Howladar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal1055
1. The two appellants were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bakarganj with the aid of a jury on several charges. The majority of the Jury found the first appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 364/34, Indian Penal Code and also of an offence punishable under Section 147, Indian Penal Code. For the first offence he was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and for the second offence to two years' rigorous imprisonment, the sentences to run concurrently. The second appellant was convicted only of an offence punishable under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, and for that he has been sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment.2. On behalf of the appellants three points have been pressed. The first relates to the acquittal of one Seher Ali who was put on his trial with the appellants. After the conclusion of the case for the prosecution the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the Jury to return a verdict of not guilty of any offence in the case of...
Keramat Mandal and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.439
1. The appellants in this case Keramat Mandal and Belat Ali Mandal were tried by the Sessions Judge of Rajshahi with the assistance of a Jury on two charges under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against the first appellant on both charges and a verdict by a majority of four to one of guilty on both charges against Belat Ali. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced both the appellants to transportation for life under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence being awarded under Section 366, Indian Penal Code.2. On behalf of the appellants several grounds have been taken the first of which being with reference to misjoinder of charges. With regard to the first charge under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, no objection is taken and it appears to us to be quite in order the difficulty is caused with regard to the second charge which runs thus: 'Secondly that you on or about the 25th day of May 1924 at ...
Keramat Mandal and anr. Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal320
1. The appellants in this case, Keramat Mandal and Belat Ali Mandal, were tried by the Sessions Judge of Rajshahi with the assistance of a jury on two charges under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code. The jury returned an unanimous verdict of guilty against the first appellant on both charges and a verdict by a majority of four to one of guilty on both charges against Belat Ali. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced both the appellants to transportation for life Tinder Section 376, Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence being awarded under S. 66, Indian Penal Code.2. On behalf of the appellants several grounds have been taken the first of which being with reference to misjoinder of charges. With regard to the first charge under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, no objection is taken and it appears to us to be quite in order. The difficulty is caused with regard to the second charge which runs thus: 'Secondly that you on or about the 25th day of May 1921 at D...
Sourendra Nath Mitter and ors. Vs. Sm. Tarubala Dassi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Cal857
Sanderson, C.J.1. This is an application by the Plaintiffs in the suit for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The suit was brought by the Plaintiffs for partition by metes and bounds of the properties described in the plaint. During the course of the trial it was alleged that a compromise between the parties had been arrived at and an application was made on behalf of the Plaintiff's to the learned Subordinate Judge for recording the compromise and for a decree in accordance with the terms of the compromise. The Defendant Srimati Tarubala Dassi objected to the compromise being recorded and to a decree being passed on the ground that the compromise had not been made with her authority. The learned Subordinate Judge heard evidence-both oral and documentary - and came to the conclusion that the compromise had been arrived at and was binding upon the parties. The learned Judge ordered the compromise to be recorded and made a preliminary decree ...
Gahur Howldar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal793,94Ind.Cas.593
1. The two appellants before us have been convicted of constructive. murder on a charge framed that they committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. On that conviction they have been sentenced to transportation for life. They were also convicted of rioting but no separate sentence was passed under Section 147, Indian Penal Code.2. It is unnecessary to state the facts of the case. It is conceded by the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer that he cannot resist one point urged on behalf of the appellants that evidence was admitted that was not admissible under the law. One of the witnesses for the prosecution was a man named Kokari. It is in evidence that this witness before the Police made statements supporting the case for the prosecution. Before the Committing Magistrate he resiled from those statements and his evidence before the Sessions Judge was substantially to the same effect as that given in the Committing Court.3. If anything, it wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »