Kolkata Court August 1925 Judgments
Prafulla Kumar Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal345
Mukerji, J.1. These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Third Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta convicting the appellants, Prafulla Kumar Roy, Chowdhury and Manik Lal Sur of an offence under Sections 120-B, 408, I.P.C. and sentencing them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Its. 500, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, and awarding the fines, if realized, to the complainant as compensation. There was another accused person one Pramatha Nath Bose, who was tried along with the appellants in respect of the same offence, but was acquitted.2. The three accused persons were on the staff of the Bengali newspaper Basumati: Profulla as a despatcher, Manik as an assistant accountant and Pramatha as checker of postage stamps. The prosecution case was that they conspired with each other and were members of a conspiracy with the object of committing criminal breach of trust in respect of postage stamp or the money equivalent...
Tag this Judgment!Prafulla Kumar Roy Chowdhury and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.883
1. These two appeals arise out of an order passed by the Third Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta convicting the appellants Prafulla Kumar Roy Chowdhury and Manik Lal Sur of an offenc under Sections 120B/403, Indian Penal Code and sentencing them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and awarding the fines, if realised, to the complainant as compensation. There was another accused person one Pramatha Nath Bose who was tried along with the appellant in respect of the same offence, but was acquitted.2. The three accused persons were on the staff of the Bengali newspaper Basumati Profulla as a despatcher, Manik as an assistant accountant and Pramatha at checker of postage stamps. The prosecution case was that they conspired with each other and were members of a conspiracy with the object of committing criminal breach of trust in respect of postage stamp or the money equivalent thereof an...
Tag this Judgment!H.W. Smith Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.889
Cuming, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Mr. T.Y. Roxburgh, convicting the accused, one H.W. Smith, under Section 304A, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.2. The facts appear to be these:3. The occurrence took place at about 10-30 or 11-30 P.M. on the night of the 12th May last.4. The accused Smith lives in Howrah and had come into Calcutta driving his own car, a Mors car No. 1990, with a friend Mr. Williams. He got as far the Mayo statue and was then coming from west to east. At the Mayo statue he determined to go home via the Red Road and, therefore, turned to the right and went along the Dufferin Road. About half way up the road he ran over and killed two coolies who were sleeping on the road.5. The Case of the prosecution is that the road was under repairs and that there was a barrier right across the road to prevent people driving along the road and that the accused kille...
Tag this Judgment!KhijiruddIn and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal139
Mukerji, J.1. The three appellants, that is to say, No. 1 Khijiruddin Sonar, No. 2, Nawabali Sheikh and No. 3, Qamruzzaman (alias Quamarulzaman.) were tried by the Sessions Judge of Rungpur with the aid of a jury. The jury were divided in the proportion of four to one. The majority convicted the appellants in respect of the charges on which they were tried, viz., Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 364, 344 and 120-B and No. 3 under Sections 364 342 and 120-B. The learned Judge, accepting the verdict, convicted the appellants of the said offences and sentenced the Appellant No. 1 to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 344, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run consecutively: the Appellant No. 2 to rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and to rigorous-imprisonment for one year under Section 345, Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run concurrently; and the Appe...
Tag this Judgment!Jogendra Nath Maiti and ors. Vs. Bhagabat Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal378
1. The plaintiffs, opposite parties, instituted a suit for recovery of possession of land valued at Rs. 2,800 and mesne profits tentatively valued at Rs. 1,200, the total value being Rs. 4000. A decree was passed for possession with a direction for determination of mesne profits at a further stage of the suit. 'The mesne profits were subsequently ascertained and the trial Court gave a decree for Rs. 5,116-8-0 with interest thereon. The defendants appealed to the District Judge while the plaintiffs appealed to this Court valuing their appeal at Rs. 5,500. The plaintiffs then applied to the District Judge for dismissal of the petitioners' appeal on the ground that the appeal lay to the High Court and not to the District Judge. While the application of the plaintiffs was pending before the District Judge, the petitioners submitted an application on the 20th July last to us to decide the question of the forum of appeal, and if it was held that the appeal lies to this Court then to treat th...
Tag this Judgment!Khetra Mohan Das and ors. Vs. Bhairab Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Cal229
Cuming, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title as tenants tinder Defendants Nos. 4 to 8, and for correction of the settlement record and confirmation of their possession. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the persons whose names are recorded in the record-of-rights as tenants now in possession.2. The plaintiffs' case was that in 1287, corresponding to 1880,itheir mother took a settlement from the ijaradar of Defendants Nos. 4 to 8 and paid rent all along to the ijaradar and that on her death the plaintiffs came into possession and continued to pay rent to the ijaradar. In the record of rights prepared in 1917 Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were recorded as tenants under the Defendants Nos. 4 to 8. This entry in the record of rights had thrown a cloud on the plaintiffs' title; they, therefore, brought the suit for the correction of the record of rights and confirmation of their possession after declaration of their title. The first...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Charan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal728
Mukerji, J.1. The appellant, Hari Charan Das, has been convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge of Dacca on charges under Sections 147 and 325 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months Under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence having been passed under Section 325 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. The facts relating to the occurrence need not be narrated here as they are to be found in the charge of the learned Judge to the jury. The validity of the conviction of the appellant has been challenged on four grounds, and I propose to deal with them in the order in which they have been urged.2. The first ground urged on behalf of the appellant is to the effect that one Majid Munshi Dafadar, who was tried with the appellant on similar charges framed against him was acquitted by the learned Judge while the trial was yet proceeding and the appellant has been prejudiced in consequence of such acquittal...
Tag this Judgment!Ramlal Murlidhar Vs. Jogendra Krishna Ray
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.790
Buckland, J.1. This is a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 25,000 as principal, and, Rs. 7,8.53, the balance of interest due on a hatchitta with further interest in default. The principal sum was advanced on the 14th November 1920. The defendants on the same day sighed a hatchitta. The hatchitta is admitted and also payments of interest subsequently made.2. It appears that on the 3rd May 1921 the defendants by way of security executed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff and other creditors charging certain property for the purpose of securing their pre-existing debts.3. The only point taken on behalf of the defendant is that the debt on the hatchitta is merged in the mortgage and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover on the hatchittas exclusively.4. No oral evidence has been adduced on either side, and I have been referred to the terms of the mortgage itself. It is argued under Section 62 of the Indian Contrast Act that the parties agreed to substitute one contract for the oth...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: West Laikdih Coal Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal781,96Ind.Cas.36
Page, J.1. This motion raises an important question as to the right of the Crown to recover arrears of cess from a Company in liquidation. The West Laikdih Coal Company, Limited, is in liquidation, and arrears of cess are due from the Company to the Crown. The Deputy Collector of Manbhum, within whose District the colliery is situated, is desirous of proceeding to recover the arrears of cess due from the Company, and this motion is 'for an order that the Cess Deputy Collector, Manbhum, be restrained from levying execution against the property of the Company, and for such further or other order as the nature of the case may require.'2. Now, by Section 98 of the Cess Act (IX of 1880):Every amount due, or which may become due to any Collector under the provisions of this Act in respect of any arrears of cess...may be realised by such Collector or by any process provided by any law for the time being in force for the realisation of public demands.3. By Section 3, Sub-section (6) of the Ben...
Tag this Judgment!Amir Ali Vs. Harise Chandra Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Cal664,95Ind.Cas.257
1. The only question involved in this case is whether the execution of the decree is barred under Section 48 of the C. P. C. The decree was obtained against several persons including the present appellant who was defendant No. 3 in the Trial Court on the 7th July 1911. There, was an appeal against that decree by two of the defendants in the case, the present appellant not being a party to it either as appellant or respondent. The appeal of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed on the 23rd December 1912. Several applications for execution of the decree had been made by the plaintiff-decree-holder for costs as against the judgment-debtors. But the present application was made on the 13th July 1923, that is, more than 12 years after the decree passed against the defendants (c) which defendant No. 3, the present appellant, was a party, but less than 12 years from the decree of the Appellate Court of the 23rd December 1912 to which the present appellant was no party.2. The contention on...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »