Kolkata Court August 1926 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.
Sattar Ali Vs. Afzal Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal532
Rankin, J.1. In this case a certain elephant which was in the house of the present petitioner was, on a certain night, seized by the police. It appears that the complainant said, it was his elephant, and that it had bean quite recently stolen. The petitioner's case was that it had been in his possession for a very long time, since the previous October. When the case came on trial before the Magistrate it appeared that the elephant had at one time been purchased in the name of the complainant on behalf of the joint family of the complainant and his brothers. The present petitioner's case was that a certain share in the elephent went to a lady, as the widow of a brother, and that on partition of the joint family property the rest of the share, in the elephant, which had got something to do with the timber business, also went to the lady. He says that he purchased first of all the right of another person to whom the lady purported to sell her share, and secondly 14 annas so as to entitle ...
isu Sheikh Vs. King-emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal200
Rankin, J.1. In this case the accused who goes by the name Yusuf has been found guilty under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, of having on the 26th February 1925 taken part in an occurrence with reference to a girl called Pipuljan who seems to have been about 14 years of age and who had been married for some two years. There was also a charge under Section 323, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution story is that the girl with her husband's permission had gone to pay a visit to her mother and brothers who were living in the house that had been her father's. The girl's husband lived in the same village, and it is said that as the mother of the girl and the younger brother were all sleeping in the same room at midnight, the accused with other persons came in, seized the girl, took, her outside in the yard and made off with her; that she was taken from one place to another and was ravished and that she came back on the 8th March, the elder brother Daga having on the 3rd March in the meantime f...
Badu Mir and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal213
1. The two petitioners in whose favour this Rule has been issued have been bound down under Section 118, Criminal P.C., to be of good behaviour for three years, each in a bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties of the like amount. One of the grounds of the Rule is to the effect that the proceedings were inexpedient or illegal in view of the fact that the petitioners had already been registered as members of a criminal tribe. The other ground on which the Rule has been issued is to the effect that the security demanded is excessive. In support of the first of the grounds reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sheikh Ghulam Rasul v. Emperor [1918] 20 Cr. L.J. 30. In that case the question of legality or propriety of instituting proceedings under Section 110, Criminal P.C., against persons who had already been registered as members of a criminal tribe came up before this Court for consideration. The learned Judges declined to quash the proceedings in that case a...
Azimaddy and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal17
Rankin, J.1. In this case there are 5 appellants. They have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Assam Valley Districts sitting with a jury of seven. There had been a previous trial and the case was sent back by this Court to be re-tried. The jury on this occasion were unanimous.2. They have found all the appellants guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian P.C. Three of them have also been found guilty under Section 302 by itself while the other two have been found guilty under Section 324.3. The fifth appellant, Rasir Haji, is the father of Appellants 1, 3 and 4, Aimaddy, Johifaddy and Rahimaddy. The second appellant, Sayad Ali, is a friend and neighbour.4. The occurrence took place between 8 and 9 a.m. on the 7th March 1925. According to the prosecution it took place at the S.E. corner of the patta land of one Kimu where it abuts upon some khas land of which Basir and Sayed Ali were wanting to get settlement from Government. According to the defence it took p...
Ali Mia and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal296,101Ind.Cas.594
ORDER1. Rule No. 493 has been issued at the instance of two persons, Ali Mia and Ismail. Rule No. 494 has been obtained by five persons, Makhlas Rahaman, Oliar Rahaman, Shafarali, Mofizulla and Nizamali. These seven persons were tried by the Sadar Sub-divisional Magistrate of Chittagong. He convicted all these seven accused persons under Section 9 of the Opium Act read with Section 120B of the Penal Code, and he also convicted two of them viz., Ali Mia and Makhlas Rahaman under Clauses (c) and (e) of Section 9 of the Opium Act and the remaining five, viz., Ismail, Oliar Rahaman Shafarali, Mofizulla and Nizamali, under Clauses (c), (d) and (e) of that section. The Sessions Judge, on appeal, has upheld the convictions of Ali Mia and Makhlas Rahaman under Section 9 of the Opium Act read with Section 120B of the Penal Code, but set aside their convictions under the Opium Act, and he has upheld the convictions of the ether accused persons. He has, however, modified the sentences passed on a...
Ram Das Singh and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal28
1. The petitioners, who are five in number, have been convicted by the Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta under Section 188 of the I.P.C. The charge against the petitioners was that they had disobeyed an order which was passed under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Chief Presidency Magistrate on the 4th April 1926. The order directed the public generally not to assemble or proceed in parties of more than 5 in number when frequenting streets and public places of Calcutta within a certain specified area. That the petitioners violated this order is clear from the finding of the learned Additional Presidency Magistrate. To convict the petitioners under Section 188 of the Indian P.C., however, it is necessary that it should be established that the petitioners knew that there was such an order which prevented them from assembling or proceeding in groups of more than five as referred to in the order. As regards this the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate held th...
Surya Kanta Jana and ors. Vs. Tarak Nath Jana and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal37
Suhrawardy, J.1. This Rule is issued as to why the petitioner should not be transferred from the category of respondents to that of appellants. The suit was brought by the appellants in Appeal from Order No. 433 of 1925 in the Court below against Defendant No. 1 (the executor) for accounts and other reliefs, as also for administration of the estate of the testator. The plaintiffs,' as well as the various sets of respondents, are beneficiaries under the Will. The plaintiffs applied in the Court below for the appointment of a Receiver to the estate of the deceased. The learned Subordinate Judge appointed a receiver to a portion of the estate for reasons stated by him in his judgment. The, plaintiffs thereupon preferred the miscellaneous appeal against that order of the Court below, making all the defendants respondents to the appeal. The present petitioners, who are some of the beneficiaries under the Will, and Defendants Nos. 5 to 7 in the suit have reason to believe that the plaintiffs...
Hulas Chand Baid Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal63
Duval, J.1. In this case the accused was put on his trial under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The case against him is that he went to the complainant's gaddi on some business and subsequently he met the complainant with a Bhatia. The Bhatia then produced a hundred rupee note and said that he could prepare notes like that. On the following day, the Bhatia made a hundred rupee note in the presence of the complainant and the accused, and the complainant was satisfied that the Bhatia was a man who could double notes. Then an arrangement was come to under which the Bhatia, the complainant, and the accused were to get a share each in the profits of the doubled notes in a certain proportion, the complainant taking the biggest share, presumably because he was the man who was to supply genuine thousand rupee notes for the purpose. Then, on the next day, the 15th February, the complainant bor...
ShahabuddIn Ahmed Vs. Abdul Kader and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Cal70
1. This Rule has been issued to show cause why the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Munshiganj on the 4th January 1926 should not be set aside on Grounds Nos. 2 and 3 of the petition. It appears that proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were drawn up on the 4th March 1925 by Mr. M.C. Ghose, the then Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Munshiganj against nine persons who were named in the said proceedings. The proceedings related to the removal of an obstruction from what was alleged to be a halat. Notices of these proceeding were issued, and it appears from the report of the serving peon that they were served upon eight out of the nine persons. The report runs to this effect : Opposite parties Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, although they were present at the time when the notices were tendered to them for service, did not give, any receipt and upon that the said notices were served by affixing them on some conspicuous part of their dwelling house; and as r...
Muhammad Suleman and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.961
N.R. Chatterjea, Acting C.J.1. The questions referred to the Fall Bench are:I. Whether upon a true construction of the Calcutta Police Act (_Ben. Act IV of 1866) a Deputy Commissioner of Police, by virtue of his powers as a Justice of the Peace or otherwise, can lawfully order the detention in Police custody of a person arrested without warrant, for any longer time than is necessary to enable such person to be brought before a Presidency Magistrate?II. Whether a Deputy Commissioner of Police can lawfully order that the detention of any such person as aforesaid at a Police Station or in Police custody shall continue until the Police investigation shall have been (a) further advanced, or (b) completed, notwithstanding that the time within which such person might have been brought before a Presidency Magistrate has elapsed?2. The powers of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police as a Justice of the Peace are defined in Section 7 of the Act, which runs as follows:The Commissioner...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »