Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1933Cal294
Rankin, C.J.1. In this case we have before us a reference under Section 374, Cr. P.C., in respect of the accused man Madhusingh who has been sentenced to death. We have also an appeal on the part of Madhusingh and we have further an appeal on the part of Powali, the co-accused, who was also convicted under Section 302, I.P.C., but was sentenced to transportation for life. Both the accused were also convicted under Section 392, I.P.C., of robbery, but no separate sentence was passed by the learned Judge upon this charge. It appears that there were five accused persons and the prosecution case was that six persons had really been concerned in murdering a Marwari Shroff, Badrinarayan Agarwalla, and his servant Lin Lalung. The prosecution case was that Badri was going with his servant with certain rupees and small change to a Tea Estate called Kulikuchi and that, having crossed the Kapili river ferry and having come to a little streamlet called Sahoridang, Badrinarayan and his servant were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal460,137Ind.Cas.854
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The nine petitioners in this case were convicted under Sections 147, and 448, I.P.C., and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The trial began before Mr. G. C. Mondal, Deputy Magistrate with second class powers on 15th April 1931 and the evidence closed on the 15th June following. Arguments were heard on 24th June and judgment was delivered on 30th June. Ordinarily the appeal would lie to the District Magistrate under Section 407, Criminal P.C., but it so happened that by Government. Order No. 1153-A. D. of 15th June 1931 the Magistrate was vested with powers of a Magistrate of the First Class. When the petitioners filed the appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, the latter directed that it should be returned for presentation before the Sessions Judge as the Magistrate was a Magistrate of the First Class and no appeal lay to the District Magistrate. The learned Judge, treating th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal488a
S.K. Ghose, J.1. The petitioner in this Rule has been directed by the learned Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta in a proceeding under Section 488, Criminal P. C, to pay to the opposite party his wife a sum of Rs. 100 as maintenance. The Rule was issued on two grounds, first, that the whole trial was vitiated by the non-examination of the petitioner under Section 342, Criminal P.C., and secondly, that the amount of maintenance awarded in the case was excessive.2. On the first point it is contended on the authority of a ease decided by the Lahore High Court (Mr. Demello v. Mrs, Demello, 27 Cr. L. J. 1,000) that Section 842, Criminal P. C, is applicable to maintenance proceedings under Section 488, Criminal P.C. On the other side there is a decision of this Court in 25 Cr. L. J. 1091, Bachai Kalwar v. Jamuna Kalwar, In that case the point of law was not actually decided, but it was held that where a person had given evidence on his own behalf it was not necessary to further exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal491
C.C. Ghose, J.1. This Rule arises out of certain proceedings had in the Court below by which the parties to a suit made an application for reference through Court to the arbitration of three persons of the dispute between them. It appears that three arbitrators were named in the submission. Then the question arose whether there should or should not be an umpire and the Court proceeded to exercise its function under Para. 4, Schedule 2, Civil P. C; but strangely enough the Court proceeded to appoint one of the arbitrators as the umpire. That is not allowable. An arbitrator cannot be an arbitrator as well as an umpire. The order therefore of the Munsif, dated 3rd December 1929, must be set aside as also all the subsequent orders, and the matter must go back to the Court below for proceeding according to law from the point when the submission to arbitration was filed in Court. The Court below can appoint an umpire under the provisions of Section 4; but the person who is to be appointed th...
Tag this Judgment!