Kolkata Court August 1928 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.
Dwarka Das Bairagi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal170
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This case comes from Burdwan where the accused in the present appeal and the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1928 were tried along with four others before the then learned Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan and a jury on a charge under Section 395, I.P.C. The jury found the present appellants and the appellants in Appeal No. 253 of 1928 guilty of having committed on offence punishable under Section 395, I.P.C. The learned Judge agreeing with the verdict of the jury sentenced each of the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. In the present appeal the appellant Hencha alias Niranjan Ghose has been represented before us by Mr. Mritunjoy Chattapadhya. The appellants in appeal No. 253 of 1928 preferred the appeal from jail and the two appeals have been heard together before us. For the reasons which we are about to give we must set aside the verdict of the jury and the conviction and sentence and direct retrial of the accused in these ...
Dwarika Das Bairagi and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-08-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.351
Charu Chunder Ghose, J.1. This case comes from Burdwan where the accused in the present appeal and the accused in Criminal Appeal No. 253 of 1928 were tried along with four others before the then learned Additional Sessions Judge of Burdwan and a Jury on a charge under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. The Jury found the present appellants and the appellants in Appeal No. 253 of 1928 guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 395, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge agreeing with the verdict of the Jury sentenced each of the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. In the present appeal the appellant Bench alias Niranjan Ghose has been represented before us by Mr. Mritunjoy Chattopadhyaya. The appellants in Appeal No. 253 of 1928 preferred the appeal from jail and the two appeals have been heard together before us. For the reasons which we are about to give we must set aside the verdict of the Jury and the conviction and sentence and direc...
Beni Madhab Mandal Vs. Rai Charan Abi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal247,117Ind.Cas.558
Page, J.1. This case raises a question of some importance with respect to the rights of auction-purchasers at a Court sale in execution of a decree. The plaintiff obtained a money decree against, defendants 1 to 4, the sons of one Pitamber Ari to whom the plaintiff had lent money upon the security of a promissory note, to the extent to which the defendants were in possession of assets belonging to Pitambar's estate. On 16th April 1919 the plaintiff himself purchased the property in dispute at a Court sale in execution of the decree. No objection to the sale of this property was raised by the defendants or any of them under Section 47 or Order 21, Civil P.C., or otherwise and in due course an order confirming the sale was passed under Order 21, Rule 92. Thereupon the sale became absolute, and the property was deemed to have vested In the plaintiff as from the date of the sale. (S. 65, and Order 21, Rule 92). The plaintiff thereafter took actual possession of the property, but having bee...
Sadarat Sheik and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1928
Reported in: 113Ind.Cas.328
1. In this case an objection has been taken to the empanelling of the Jury. That objection and the grounds thereof will appear from the affidavit of one Hazarat Mandal filed on behalf of the appellants.2. It appears that four out of ten persons summoned attended the Court. Two out of the four persons were objected to. Thereupon certain persons not present in Court were asked to come to Court for the purpose of being called to serve as Jurors. This course which has been adopted by the learned Judge is objected to on behalf of the appellant as being one not in accordance with the proviso contained in Section 276 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in support of that contention our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Mohammad Sagir-ud-Din v. Emperor : AIR1928Cal551 decided on the 23rd March, 1927. We think that the objection must be allowed. The persons who were asked to attend were not persons present in Court and that being so, they could not be chosen to serve a...
Basana Sen Vs. Aghore Nath Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-06-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal631
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case, the learned District Judge of Dacca has had before him a petition under the Special Marriage Act of 1872, asking that a certain marriage may be declared null on the ground that the woman at the time of the marriage in 1926 had not completed the age of 21 years and had not obtained the consent of her father. It appears that this girl was a pupil of the Eden Intermediate College at Dacca and that the respondent was a person who had been employed as her tutor and that on 9th April 1926, they went before the Registrar and made declarations under the Special Marriage Act. Both of them are Hindus and the Special Marriage Act would not, therefore, apply to them at all, but for recent legislation, namely, Act 30 of 1923. It appears that the form of the declaration at the end of the schedule to the Special Marriage Act of 1872 contains a paragraph which has to be sworn to when the party has not completed the age of 21 years to say that the consent of the father or g...
Latafat HossaIn Biswas and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal745
C.C. Ghose, J.1. In this case there are four appellants before us. Appellant 1 Latafat Hossain Biswas has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 120-B I.P.C., appellant 2 Engraj Sekh has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 and also under Section 120-B. I.P.C., appellant 3 Khedarali Sekh has been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 and appellant 4 Kaser Sekh has been convicted under Section 120-B I.P.C.2. The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows : Saferuddin Biswas and the accused Latafat Hossain Biswas are step-brothers. Their father Naimuddin died in 1327 B.S. and they occupy his pucca house in village Gournagar, P.S. Meherpur. In 1332 B.S. they partitioned the house and property. Latafat occupied the north part of the house, Safer the south part. Since then they have been on bad terms. There were quarrels over the partition of the house and the partition of the property, particularly cert...
Nawabali and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal752,116Ind.Cas.372
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This appeal was argued at considerable length yesterday and also to-day. Various points have been urged before us with a view to show that there are serious misdirections in the learned Judge's charge to the jury. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge's charge to the jury has been subjected to very minute criticizm; but on the fullest consideration we are unable to say that any portion of the charge can be assailed on the ground of misdirection.2. There is, however, one point which requires consideration and it is this. It is said that as regards the appellant, Nawab Ali, who was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109 I.P.C., among other sections, the learned Judge's explanation of Section 109 was defective in this that he used language from which it might be construed that the learned Judge was of opinion that if Nawab Ali ordered his men to beats and if the killing of Hamijuddin was committed in consequence of his order to boat, Nawab Ali was to be held gui...
Bansidhar Dobey Vs. Budangal Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal763,117Ind.Cas.604
1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit in respect of some land in the Western Duars in the district of Jalpaiguri. The plaintiff is a jotedar and the defendant is a chukanidar under him. In 1918 the chukani was purchased by the plaintiff in execution of a decree. In Chaitra 1325 (1919) the plaintiff let out the chukani to one Lepta Uraon who executed a kabuliat agreeing to pay Rs. 115 as rent. In 1920 the defendant purchased the land from Lepta Uraon. The plaintiff has brought this suit for rent at the rate of Rs. 115 a year. The defendant has pleaded that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the rent at which he settled the land but at the rate of Rs. 104 odd which is that rent recorded in the settlement record. Both the Courts have accepted the defendant's plea and decreed the suit at the rate admitted by him. There was also a plea of payment. The plaintiff appeals and it is argued on his behalf that the defendant is bound by the engagement entered into by Lepta Uraon (his vend...
Ambar Ali Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Cal769,117Ind.Cas.684,117Ind.Cas.684
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This case has been argued at considerable length by the learned advocate, Mr. Talukdar, but after giving our best consideration to the arguments which have been advanced on behalf of the appellant we are of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed and for the following reasons:The case for the prosecution, shortly stated, was as follows : On the afternoon of 3rd October 1927, the deceased Kala Mia found two heads of cattle belonging, to the accused Ambar Ali straying into his field just to the north of the bari of the accused and damaging his paddy crop. He took them into custody with the object of impounding them and refused to let them off at the request of the accused Ambar Ali. After some altercation the accused is said to have struck him on the head with a lathi. Almost simultaneously Ambar's nephew Abdul Aziz who is not an accused in this case gave a blow on his head with a dao, with the result that he fell down unconscious on the field. He was removed to an ai...
Biswanath Chakravarti Vs. Rabija Khatun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-03-1928
Reported in: AIR1929Cal250,117Ind.Cas.593
Mitter, J.1. The only question argued in this appeal is the question of limitation. The plaintiff, now appellant, purchased in execution of a money decree against Khadim Ali the laud in suit on 8th December 1909. The sale was made absolute on 14th January 1910 and symbolical possession was taken on 2nd March 1913. The defendants, now respondents were cosharers with Khadim Ali in the disputed land. They contend that the present suit is barred by limitation as it was not instituted within 12 years from the date of sale. The Munsif held that there was no allegation in the plaint that Khadim Ali was in possession of the disputed land jointly with the defendants and found the iasue of limitation against the plaintiff and dismissed his suit. On appeal the learned District Judge of Chittagong held that time should begin to run from the date of the sale and not from the date of delivery of symbolical possession as was conttended for by the plaintiff. The learned District Judge dismissed the ap...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »